|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Department Of Homeland Security Inaction At the Top | |||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
There's another interesting topic I just came across.
Cindy Sheehan wrote a commentary in which she decried the occupation of New Orleans.
quote: And:
quote: Emphasis mine. In fact, you will find the entire commentary posted on MichaelMoore.Com Michael Moore | Substack If Cindy Sheehan is ticked off at Bush for "occupying" New Orleans, instilling order, and ending looting, imagine how angry she would be if for Ivan and Lili he had inserted thousands of troops without their being requested from the Governor? This message has been edited by gene90, 09-16-2005 04:54 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TheLiteralist Inactive Member |
What if FEMA had responded several days earlier? Would New Orleans needed to have been occupied?
I believe (hey, I can't prove it) that the Federal Government sat back on purpose to let it reach a situation such that Americans would be willing to let soldiers occupy an American city with orders to shoot to kill if necessary. I think it's a sort of a test run...to see what the tolerance of the American people is...to see whether the Government can pull it off -- that is, deceive us into thinking it's helping when, in fact, it is just waiting for an opportunity to demolish the Constitution utterly. --Jason This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-16-2005 05:09 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: "Several days earlier" Katrina was a Category 1 hurricane in Florida, and there was no real evidence that such a catastrophe was imminent. Please see my previous post (message 255) in which I compare the history of Katrina to previous hurricanes Lili and Ivan, thus showing that there was nothing extraordinary enough to justify a massive deployment of troops and Federal personnel on the 27th of August, and that even if such a deployment had occured, there was no place in particular to concentrate them. On top of that, you risk endangering Federal assets by deliberately exposing them to a disaster beforehand. Further, unless the FEMA people would have been magically fixing those levee breaches faster than the water was tearing through it would not have changed the outcome. Finally, FEMA was very slow but FEMA usually is. You know, there already is an emerging conspiracy theory: that explosives residue was supposedly found on levee debris and covered-up by the Corps of Engineers. Shall we unpack the tinfoil? This message has been edited by gene90, 09-16-2005 05:38 PM This message has been edited by gene90, 09-16-2005 05:39 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Right. That's one of the reasons there should be a bipartison investigation: Bush has too much of a stake in this since he pushed for the unification. I think that covers (2) also. (3) There is nothing here I disagree with, really we need more information. (4) What legal power does the DHS have to force New Orleans to make a plan, and then stand by it in an emergency? (5a) There is nothing I can possibly say to justify these two appointments. (5b) Yes, primary authority rests with the lowest level of government. So we are agreed up to (5b) ...
In accordance with FEMA’s primary authorizing legislation, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, FEMA is first and foremost a coordinating agency. But this is trumped by the DHS legislation and the reassignment of FEMA under DHS.
For those events that rise to the level of an Incident of National Significance, the Department of Homeland Security provides operational and/or resource coordination for Federal support to on-scene incident command structures. Looks like they don't take their own mission statement at face value - like I said, pretty words don't accomplish anything if they aren't backed up by action. This is straight conservative small government handbook thinking, and in the case of Katrina and the whole gulf coast this was shown to be ... unforgivable at best, criminally negligent at worst (sorry if I don't think "unnacceptable" is even a start at an acceptable response -- people rescued later than necessary is unacceptable, people dying as a result is abominable).
Again, I'm not really interested in rehashing this over and over again. Then stop focusing on the historical foundation of FEMA and look at the new foundation of DHS.
(5c) I like the idea of requiring FEMA to be more proactive in the rare catastrophes. I also like the idea of using Federal resources like bases in an integrated, multistate evacuation plan. I believe it was Jesse Jackson that suggested within a few days of the storm and I still think it's viable. There are other good suggestions as well. Thanks, I first heard of the base idea from U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (before Jackson was involved? not sure).
If the United States wants to continue to persist for another 200 years then people think need to think about major catastrophes (bigger than this one), continuity of gov't, etc. There are bigger problems out there than hurricanes, specifically nuclear war, the probability of which I would say gets closer to one as the decades pass by. Fine, but first lets build the answers to the known problems, and look at ways to include others (we had atomic bomb shelters, I know of one that is less than 5 miles from here ...)
(5d) We're not going to settle State's rights issues or the ideal size of the Federal government, so I will simply agree to disagree. heh. I had accepted that as inevitable at the start ... we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: Well then
quote: In other words, you are exploiting it to make a political statement about the ideal size and powers of the Federal government? Neither the Federal government nor the State or local governments can take primary responsibility for the safety of individuals who choose to live in a city below sea level and then, for whatever reason, do not leave. And in the case of people who were pulled from rooftops, did not even take their mayor's advice and go to the Superdome. THAT is conservative, small government thinking. If everybody thought this way: (1) New Orleans would be a lot smaller to begin with (I might not have lived there because I've been expecting this disaster, if I did, I would get flood insurance and have a car to leave. If I couldn't afford those things, then I couldn't afford New Orleans). (2) Fewer people would have remained in the city. (3) There wouldn't be people still needing to be rescued because they would have walked to the Superdome or convention center before the storm had they not been able to get out of the city. (4) 800+ people probably would not have died. But since personal responsibility isn't PC these days, we have this partisan attempt to blame Bush for people that willingly chose to remain, not only in New Orleans but in unsafe housing projects. You gave me your editorial with the "criminal negligence" quip, that's mine. It's hardly "criminal negligence" when we are talking about adults who should have gotten out but chose not to do so.
quote: Unless lead=coordinate. And you didn't answer my question. Under what legal authority can DHS force New Orleans to have an acceptable evacuation plan, and stick to it?
quote: Was it stocked and ready? Have you visited it? Another problem is that nuclear shelters are usually put in the ground and not higher than the first story. If you're anticipating 30 feet of water... And please, while you are at, explain what you mean by "later than necessary", and how you know how long is "necessary". This message has been edited by gene90, 09-16-2005 07:40 PM This message has been edited by gene90, 09-16-2005 07:59 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In other words, you are exploiting it to make a political statement about the ideal size and powers of the Federal government? LOL. Nope, just pointing out that things have changed with the creation of the DHS (and certainly not necessarily for the better). The DHS was given a task and fumbled.
quote: Unless lead=coordinate. Again, the mission statement reads: FROM: Department Of Homeland Security, The OFFICIAL Vision and Mission Statement, etc: The DHS Strategic Plan -- Securing Our Homeland (click)Mission We will lead the unified national effort to secure America. We will prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the nation. We will ensure safe and secure borders, welcome lawful immigrants and visitors, and promote the free-flow of commerce. Clearly they did not lead (or get out of the way).
And you didn't answer my question. Under what legal authority can DHS force New Orleans to have an acceptable evacuation plan, and stick to it? Because it is a bogus question. Under what legal authority can any department of anything force any person to do anything? What DHS has, and what Chertoff clearly had the authority to do, was contact Nagin and say "Nagin ol boy, we've identified a hurricane hitting New Orleans as the third highest priority national safety concern, and I've assigned Pete Highwater as your emergency coordinator. I would like to arrange a meeting between him and your emergency planning staff to go over your preparation and evacuation plan." Nagin replies (a) "we have no plan" (b) "we are working on a plan" or (c) "we have a plan in place that has already been tested" and Chertoff says "Great, Pete will be able to help you coordinate your {new\developing\current} plan with the nearby states and with our federal agency to ensure that the final result covers all of our (yours, the state's and the federal government's) concerns for the safety of the people" ... if Nagin refuses to set up the meetings, then keep asking and documenting the requests and responses. You can imagine the effectiveness of such documentation on a hearing into the failures we've seen. Clearly they had a mandate to coordinate all levels of government and only a totally incompetent manager would think that this only applies after {the situation} has already occurred.
Was it stocked and ready? Have you visited it? Another problem is that nuclear shelters are usually put in the ground and not higher than the first story. If you're anticipating 30 feet of water... Actually it is exhibited as an example of the cold war and is in the basement of an old factory that is becoming an upscale {business\condo} redevelopment for yuppie dink types. But when the nation was under a nationwide threat the federal government set up a program that created these centers. Of course this is the same government (dems reps libs cons) that went to the moon and established the Peace Corps, so the ability is there to accomplish great things, what is missing {now} is the will and the inspiration that true leadership gives.
And please, while you are at, explain what you mean by "later than necessary", and how you know how long is "necessary". There is a story in the news of an elderly woman who called on her phone Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday saying that the water was rising inside her house and she could not get out and to please send help. On Friday she drowned. They knew the location of the house. That is "later than necessary" with room to spare in my mind.
Neither ... can take primary responsibility for the safety of individuals who choose to live in a city below sea level and then, for whatever reason, do not leave. Not for those who had means and opportunity. If you read my first post on Katrina you will see that position echoed. The concern is for those who do not have the means or who are lulled into a false sense of security by those that are supposed to provide the protection (you can go to the superdome ...)
(1) New Orleans would be a lot smaller to begin with (I might not have lived there because I've been expecting this disaster, if I did, I would get flood insurance and have a car to leave. If I couldn't afford those things, then I couldn't afford New Orleans). Except we are also talking about people who cannot afford to leave the city they were born in.
(2) Fewer people would have remained in the city. (3) There wouldn't be people still needing to be rescued because they would have walked to the Superdome or convention center had they not been able to get out. You have greater faith in human nature than I do . My experience is that many people will refuse to move until it is too late. We see this in NC with Ophelia sitting on top of the Outerbanks, an area of (geologically temporary) low sandy eroding islands with no high ground and access limited by old narrow bridges that would probably be taken out by any kind of storm surge.
... we have this partisan attempt to blame Bush for people that willingly chose to remain, not only in New Orleans but in unsafe housing projects. But I don't blame bush for those that chose to remain and who had the means to evacuate. I do hold his DHS responsible for failing to plan for the evacuation of those who want to leave and can't, and for failing to have any other plan. Remember that the historical experience of Americans is that evacuation is haphazard, uncontrolled chaos that usually results in vehicles lined up for miles going no-where. Talk to anyone from the coast and you will hear the pros and cons of evacuation debated, and the biggest con is blocked roads and the greater vulnerability on the blocked roads. The bridge over lake Pontrachain covered in bumper to bumper cars ... I don't defend those who stayed, I condemn the only perceived alternatives being (1) stuck on the road or (2) stuck in the superdome ... or (3) stuck at home.
But since personal responsibility isn't PC these days, Most of the people that I knew that refused to evacuate the coast were white middle class card carrying NRA members of the republican party (in part because most of the people I knew there were white middle class card carrying NRA members of the republican party). Stupid behavior is not limited to one party over the other. Ignorant behavior - and perceptions - can be changed with new information. We did, after all, go to the moon. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: You said that it's the because of a failure of the DHS if New Orleans wasn't prepared. That logic is specious until you demonstrate that if DHS told NO to prepare, they would. How do you suggest that DHS enforce it's "leadership" role?
quote: LOL. Basically, Leadership Through Annoyance. Look, I agree that DHS uses too many "pretty words" in it's mission statement but claiming that they have control over everything that happens is nonsense. I restate the question: What can DHS do if New Orleans doesn't have an acceptable plan? What can DHS do if other States don't want to play ball?
quote: Only if such a disaster actually occurs, and nobody expects one during their time in office. That isn't a valid threat until after the bungle-up happens.
quote: A mandate. Where is the legal authority?
quote: But it does only apply after a "situation". You said it yourself: you would have hearings and then public outrage. You need a foulup for that.
quote: You want to shelter people in a museum exhibit?
quote: You want to shelter people in a "museum"-type exhibit that is in a basement. And I presume this is in New Orleans?
quote: First of all, though, there is no evidence that the shelter system would have functioned well enough, fortunately we never had to find out. That shelter system was also inspired by a clear threat of nuclear annihilation that occasonally bordered on hysteria. That being said, if DHS were to bring back a shelter program (for hurricanes and for nuclear fallout) I would politically support that.
quote: This is an Appeal to Emotion when I asked for a logical argument. I am not asking if they got there too late to rescue everyone. It was "too late" to rescue everyone when the hurricane struck. I am asking how fast they could have reasonably gotten there, and how you know. I would like to know how you know how long the logistics should take, what units to move in from where, how long it takes to clear the roads, how long it should actually take the Coast Guard to make 30,000 rescue ops. that sort of thing. This is what you need to produce before you can say that it took unreasonably long. I haven't seen this from you, and until it is provided, you are committing the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. The question stands.
quote: They should have gone to the Superdome. More to the point, they should not have lived in a city below sea level without having a means of escape.
quote: Why can't they? Citizens of Mexico can illegally cross the US border with virtually no resources and relocate essentially anywhere in the Lower 48. Many of the citizens of New Orleans are poor...but I doubt that poor.
quote: I have remained in a hurricane's path but through my own conscious decision, fully comprehending the risk. If I had died or been inconvenienced by an overwhelmed government unable to instantly rescue me, that would have been my own fault.
quote: Then we have at least some common ground.
quote: Why didn't Nagin plan? Don't you hold him responsible for that? And further, technically those people should have planned. Like I said, if I could not afford a car and flood insurance, then I don't think I could afford to live in New Orleans. And even if I did, I would have been darn sure to check a topo map before finding digs. I guess you could blame the government for that too if you wanted...encouraging the poor to live in a dangerous place through housing projects. I'll agree though that DHS should have a plan for New Orleans. They should also have a plan for a mag 9 earthquake in Washington State, too. I don't want to say that I think DHS was running at anything near what it should have done. I'm just not satisfied with all these claims like "they weren't fast enough" (how fast should they have been given the resources and warning they had?)
quote: Not nature, but common sense.
quote: Yeah, but how often does not everyone get out? Now, this is something else DHS needs to be thinking about: making sure that evacuations can finish before landfall. But that's OT.
quote: Hah! I can picture that--though I still hate to think that they were endangered, and perhaps some even killed, in the storm.
quote: If you say that the government (preferably with help from the States) should improve education, then I'm with you on it. Same thing with the shelter program you were talking about. This message has been edited by gene90, 09-17-2005 10:32 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You said that it's the because of a failure of the DHS if New Orleans wasn't prepared. How do you suggest that DHS enforce it's "leadership" role? I restate the question: What can DHS do if New Orleans doesn't have an acceptable plan? A mandate. Where is the legal authority? You need a foulup for that. Why didn't Nagin plan? Don't you hold him responsible for that? For starters, DHS could proceed to make their own plan taking whatever NO had as a starting point, incorporating anything from the states in the area, and then presenting the result to the others for comments and considerations. If they are leaders they shouldn't have to wait for anyone. The legal authority is to lead, not to follow. And actually, Nagin did have a plan. It was what everyone in NO had planned for the last several decades (and which was presumably "tested" in the 2000 exercise): have those that can evacuate to wherever they want to go, have those who want to stay remain behind, and have the superdome available for those who need refuge to survive the {night\day} of the storm, and then to have the feds come in and mop up. Problem is, nobody said that it was a bad plan ... or that it would take 5 days for the feds to arrive in sufficient numbers (beyond the USCG SAR members) to pick up the pieces. Nobody coordinated the {bad plan} with the {coastal states plan} and the {same-old same-old FEMA federal plan} or the {new federally mandated but apparently non-existent national disaster plan}. That still looks like a {DHS\Chertoff} failure no matter what other elements failed in the process, and the point is that there was a {DHS\Chertoff} failure in spite of this being a new system that was supposed to make things better.
You want to shelter people in a museum exhibit? ... You want to shelter people in a "museum"-type exhibit that is in a basement. And I presume this is in New Orleans? ... there is no evidence that the shelter system would have functioned well enough ... also inspired by a clear threat of nuclear annihilation that occasonally bordered on hysteria heh
This is an Appeal to Emotion when I asked for a logical argument. What I was using the atomic bomb shelters for, was an example of planning on a national level for a foreseen disaster, and mobilizing the population, some to make individual shelters (again, like tornado shelters?). This shows that this kind of planning and implementation is feasible. Whether it is adequate is another matter, but compared to what we saw, there is a lot of room for improvement before we even get to adequate eh?
I am not asking if they got there too late to rescue everyone. Then we disagree. To me if one (1) life could have been saved by a slightly quicker response then that is sufficient evidence of it taking an "unreasonably long" time to rescue them, given the massive delays that were observed.
you are committing the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. People died in the five days after the hurricane and before the federal troops moved in. The girl raped and throat slit in the superdome, the nursing home patients (where the owners are now being charged with homicide by negligence). What do you need, evidence of help bypassing people who then died? Like the elderly and wheelchair bound who died of dehydration and malnutrition waiting to be picked up while buses passed them (because they were in the "projects" and not the hotels)? I have to wonder if you were looking at a different disaster than what I saw. Why was there {non-existent\inadequate} security within the superdome when that was where all the people were supposed to go? Why no {medical\first-responder} units? Put them there before the storm and you know they will be there when they are needed eh? There was no coordination of this {bad plan of refuge} with state or federal resources ... and certainly no pre-arranged coordinated {city\state\federal} plan to move the people out of the dome after the storm had passed or to provide food and medical care while they were there. At one point in my life I chose to stay in a burning building, holding an emergency fire hose on a part of the fire that I could reach until the professionals arrived, knowing that there were many elderly in the other apartments. I like to believe that what I did helped mitigate the fire and allowed the professionals to contain it to the point where there was only property damage and no loss in life, but I have no delusions that without their timely arrival that my effort would have been wasted. Here in America we operate on the basic assumption that we have a complete system of government services set up so that the apropriate level of {whatever is needed} is available and waiting to jump into action when needed.
Citizens of Mexico can illegally cross the US border with virtually no resources and relocate essentially anywhere in the Lower 48. {Mexican\CAmericans\SAmericans} are drawn to the US with misconceptions of what it is like and what they will be {allowed\able} to {do\accomplish}. Those living in the projects do not have these misconceptions, rather they have a different set that says no matter what they {do\accomplish} that things will not change. It's a difference in perceptions, not in the reality of the situation. And, if things don't change then why move away from family and familiarity?
Hah! I can picture that--though I still hate to think that they were endangered ... What is the most controlling (IMHO) part of human behavior on things like this is the narcissistic belief that it won't happen to them, they won't be the ones to die, the storm will pass to the side, they've lived through it before as have their parents and grandparents, etc. This holds for rich, poor and middle, educated and ignorant. Look at all the people sitting on top of the San Andreas Fault. It is not a matter of perceiving the danger, but the personal level of the danger.
I don't think I could afford to live in New Orleans. And even if I did, I would have been darn sure to check a topo map before finding digs. When I liven in Indiana we had opportunity to buy shorefront property on several small river connected lakes, and we chose one where there was about 15ft elevation between the lake and the house because all the others were on floodplain (river and lake). While we lived there they had a "100 year" flood that cause this {river\lake} system to rise 10 feet and flooded all the other houses we looked at (among others), but not ours. We don't disagree on our personal choices. The question is whether other people have the same {information\perceptions\ability} to reach the same conclusions, and whether they are lulled into a false sense of security by government {behavior\inaction}. The question is whether our government can and should help or remain passive, neutral, waiting to react.
If you say that the government (preferably with help from the States) should improve education, then I'm with you on it. Same thing with the shelter program you were talking about. Then we have at least some common ground. yep. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: I think that's fair, but...
quote: How do they enforce it? CNN just ran (in the last ten minutes, on their flagship channel) a story that Nagin is saying that business owners should return to New Orleans, but the Feds are saying that the conditions aren't acceptable and that anyone who returns does so on their own risk. Who should the people of New Orleans listen to? Why isn't Nagin following the Federal line, if the Feds are his boss? I'm curious about how much authority they have in this situation.
quote: Okay.
quote: :Nods: at recognition of people doing their job.
quote: Okay, but if you were in charge of FEMA (or DHS if you prefer) could you have assured us that you would have gotten everyone out? How can you assure this is even possible? Yes, one life lost is too many, and I can say that about a lot of things. But I think the question should be whether it is reasonable to expect that no life will be lost.
quote: That's the smart thing to do, and more people should think like that. Especially this case since you're talking about shorefront property...I doubt that building in that area was out of economic necessity since that usually drives up land value. Around here I know where the floodplains are, and some of them are getting townhouses built on them. Should've stayed a golf course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If Cindy Sheehan is ticked off at Bush for "occupying" New Orleans, instilling order, and ending looting, imagine how angry she would be if for Ivan and Lili he had inserted thousands of troops without their being requested from the Governor? Yeah, and then she would have proposed legislation to... no, wait. She would have gotten on her syndicated national talk show and - wait, that's not right, either. I guess she would have written a column in her widely-circulated newspaper about - no, still not right. Perhaps she would have published a peer-reviewed article in... no, she doesn't do that either. What exactly does she do, precisely, that causes you to put her forth as someone who's opinion I should give a fuck about? Or did the President, along with suspending the prevaling wage, suddenly suspend people's First Amendment rights to shoot their mouths off and say stupid shit?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
How do they enforce it? As I understand it, as soon as the president declares a national disaster that DHS can take over. That was Aug 29 in this case, but there is no reason you could not contact the governors before and organize this a day earlier when you have a very good idea {when\where} the storm will hit. Beyond that, (here we'll assume that DHS actually did it's job) you have a plan for pre-emptive manning specific evacuation centers across the gulf states... On August 26 you have to be pretty sure when the storm is going to land, even if the exact location and strength is indeterminate: you move people into the evacuation centers to man them across the whole projected storm region (with a good plan most people would already be {near\available}, such as National Guard Units and First Responders, and special units, like amphibious craft, around centers of special concern, like NO), taking the 27th and 28th to finish the job and to refine the center of {SAR\aid\relief\resources\etc} necessary. You do this by contacting the governors and telling them you are staffing the centers in accordance with the plan. If need be, you have the president declare the centers "national disaster sites" so you have control, but I would be really surprised if a single official objected to moving in aid, supplies and resources early. You put on national emergency announcements on TV and radio stating that the centers are being activated and manned, ready for the storm in advance, ready to receive evacuees, with food, shelter and medical attention already available for those who come early. These get augmented with the official declaration of disaster with directions on where to go and what to take for those who are stragglers. You put on your nikes, drink your gatorade, and just do it because it's in you.
Why isn't Nagin following the Federal line, if the Feds are his boss? I'm curious about how much authority they have in this situation. The Feds aren't his boss, the people are, just as the people are the Feds boss. We give each authority to do different things. It seems to me that Nagin is saying "we need business to move back in so that the economy can get back on track as soon as possible and help with the recovery" (supply side economics?) and the Feds are saying "it may not be safe on the streets and with the (lack of) sanitary conditions" but that both are leaving it up to individual decisions. Certainly the Feds through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS), has the authority to close places that are a health hazard, and the National Guard (under declared martial law?) has the authority to enforce curfews and restrictions from dangerous areas. This is, after all, part of what a really coordinated multi-level plan would address. The reason you have disparity is because there was no coordinated plan before the disaster. That is clearly not Nagins fault as he is only resposible for NO, it must be :Nods: at recognition of people doing their job. Shakes head at "leaders" waiting until disaster strikes before they begin to do their job.
Okay, but if you were in charge of FEMA (or DHS if you prefer) could you have assured us that you would have gotten everyone out? How can you assure this is even possible? Yes, one life lost is too many, and I can say that about a lot of things. But I think the question should be whether it is reasonable to expect that no life will be lost. I didn't say that. I said if one was lost due to avoidable delay then it is "unreasonably long" ... I accept that some deaths will occur in disasters, the job is to minimize them.
Around here I know where the floodplains are, and some of them are getting townhouses built on them. Should've stayed a golf course. I've seen that. I've also seen floodplain signs taken down regularly by the {?locals?developers?realestate?}. Building townhouses themselves is not bad (and can be better than a bunch of old cottages) IFF the living levels are all above flood level and there are provisions (connected elevated walkways) to get in (fire & ambulance) and out (evacuate), they are built to withstand the floods, and they open up the floodplain into more of a park setting open space until needed. I know of one such development that had 1/2 sunken basement apartments in the floodplain . Heck, a lot of housing in NO could have had all living areas raised above floodplain, certainly there is no excuse for the hotels and hospitals and businesses and the like not to have been "hardened" for the "big one" just like they are in california earthquake zones.
Okay, but if you were in charge of ... If I were involved in planning for the future of NO the one fact I would start from is that the land is continuously sinking (and has been for ... almost ever), and this leads to three solutions: (1) abandon New Orleans and let nature take it's course.(2) fill in New Orleans and jack everything up as time passes so that it stays above sea level (and instead of levee building you have ongoing projects to raise the various low levels).(*) (3) you convert New Orleans, raise the buildings on islands of filled foundations, create elevated passageways for {pedestrians\vehicles} (or eliminate personal vehicles and go to rapid transit systems and emegency vehicles), and turn the roadways into canals, a new venice. My preference would be for (3), but that's the romantic "ol' soul in me oh" . Of course any rebuilding should also include specific planned emergency evacuation centers ... (those fully planned within the city limits eh?) (*) {abe} Note that ski mountains are currently being made from waste trucked out of towns. There should be ways to seperate noxious trash from stabilized(able) solid material and use this in an ongoing program. The highest point in Rhode Island (for all you "high-pointers" out there) is now a landfill site - it has passed all the natural hills. {/abe} This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*18*2005 06:16 PM we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: You admit that Sheehan doesn't have a clue about what she's talking about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You admit that Sheehan doesn't have a clue about what she's talking about? She's shooting her mouth off and acting stupid. But you still haven't answered my question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: Okay, but right now you have the mayor of New Orleans and the current head of the Federal relief effort contradicting each other. See my previous post.
quote: Fair criticism, assuming that the Feds have power to force compliance.
quote: Okay, and you mentioned a lady that died after calling for help several times. But what we don't know is how many resources were available to rescue her, how thinly spread the Coast Guard was in making rescues, etc. Like I said, one life is too many, but what we want to know is how many can reasonably be expected to be saved.
quote: Right, but normally building codes are the province of local governments.
quote: Okay, but if you were in charge of FEMA or DHS on last August 27th...how quickly should FEMA have gotten there, with how many people, and how do we know the figures are reasonable?
quote: This is already done. Guidelines positioning landfills make a distinction between "rubbish"--chemically stable building materials, and "garbage"--containing items you want to be careful to separate from your aquifer. The rubbish landfill is a lot easier to license. Basically you're talking about moving this rubbish to build on. Subsidence/compaction will likely cause some foundation damage but it's a way that cities have historically dealt with flooding and added real-estate to waterlines.
quote: How much would this cost? You might want to look at, I think, message 255, in which I show that on the 27th this hurricane wasn't looking like as much of a threat as two "duds" for New Orleans in the last few years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: Because it isn't important. The reason I mentioned Sheehan is to demonstrate that no matter what Bush does, somebody somewhere will come out of the woodwork to censure him. I'm glad you agree Sheehan is a moonbat.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024