Re: I'm Tired Of These Ungrateful Hurricane Victims
"Bill Sornson" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> Bob the Cow wrote:
>>> And if
>>> Bush had approved it, and the hurricane come a year later after the
>>> stuff was all installed, the Bush-haters would have vilified him for
>>> wasting all the gummint's money on the whiz-bang high-tech pumping
>>> stations. Even if Halliburton hadn't installed them.
>> :-) As if there would be a chance Halliburton wouldn't get the job!
> As usual, Frank misses the point.
Frank can defend himself. But there's a general set of points here:
1. In any disaster, people will play politics.
Disaster plans are plans made by committees (of politicians/administrators
who often don't believe they will ever have to carry them out). It's hard
to avoid "rosy scenarios" in this type of thinking, such as the revelation
today that New Orleans' plans assumed the levees would hold (they might be
topped by water, but wouldn't break). Since they have several breaks, it's
pretty obvious this reasoning was over-optimistic. But, to avoid being
blamed yourself you have to find somebody else to blame.
On a different thread, another poster wants to blame pre-World War I
"engineer and inventor A.
Baldwin Wood [for his] enacted his ambitious plan to drain the city,
pumps of his own design which are still used". This approach safely blames
the dead, who may be more mobile in New Orleans right now if the coffins are
floating again, but still dead and unlikely to talk back. I predict a lot of
blaming of the dead. This will be Huey Long's fault before the end of
2. Today, GW is seemingly abandoning his own administration by declaring
"the results are not acceptable" and pledging to whip things into shape. No
need for anybody to defend FEMA when the head guy is hanging them out to
3. If Katrina had hit New Orleans during the year 1999 (i.e. after several
years of the Clinton administration) would the results have been different?
Certainly the same levees would have likely failed in the same way. Would
FEMA have responded more rapidly? I seem to remember a lot of complaints
about FEMA over my adult life, so I'm not sure FEMA would have done better.
4. You can't prepare for everything. But it seems remarkable to think that
we are unprepared to deliver emergency supplies for several days after a
disaster for which we had a few days warning. That, to me, is the scary
part. I would have thought we would have been able to helicopter in abundant
food and water beginning Tuesday, along with the military force necessary to
dole it out reasonably fairly.
We can't protect against all disasters, since we can't even begin to list
all possible disasters. But we should be able to rapidly provide basic stuff
almost anywhere in the country quickly.
5. Some of the statements of various politicians seem misleading in the
extreme. For example, when Bush was interviewed by Diane Sawyer, he made a
big deal out of opening up the petroleum reserves. Bush, as a Texas oilman,
would surely be aware that the biggest short term problem is lack of
refinery / port / pipeline capacity. Bush surely isn't alone in the
misleading statement category, but I'm tired and will let other people
nominate their favorites.