<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/4/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jeff Harkins</b> <<a href="mailto:jeffh@moscow.com">jeffh@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I am just curious Andreas, what, exactly would you have done?<br><br>Now remember, the storm veered east just before<br>landfall and had dropped from a Cat 5 to a Cat 4;<br>the news reports noted high winds, heavy rain in
<br>and around NO, but no "catastrophic damage." As<br>I recall, the state officials had recommended<br>evacuation, but it was not mandatory........ it<br>wasn't until the next day that "mandatory evac" was ordered..........
</blockquote><div><br>
Both FEMA and the Louisiana state government were well aware, quite to
the contrary of both Bush and Chertoff's statements, that a Category 4
hurricane would cause catastrophic flooding in New Orleans; they had,
in fact, developed a scenario as far back as 2001 that predicted as
many as 80,000 deaths and render large portions of the city
uninhabitable. However, FEMA"s transition to DHS control (and the
separation of FEMA's planning office into its own, terrorism-focused
unit) had rendered it incapable of producing a response to that
scenario. I personally read about that scenario in a Scientific
American /four years ago/. <br>
<br>
And Chertoff's claim that they weren't preparing for 'two disasters' is
desperate clutching at straws. 'Hurricanes' and 'flooding' are two
disasters in the same sense that an 'earthquake' and 'buildings falling
down' are.<br>
<br>
We knew about this possibility years before the fact. We knew the
levees were subsiding, and that federal money to fix them was not being
provided. Plans were not produced, steps were not taken, heads should
roll.<br>
<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Power was lost (total darkness), and no landline<br>communications and most cell phones were out (no
<br>towers). There was no evidence of a breach in<br>the levee ,,,,,,,,,,, the media was reporting<br>that the worst appeared to be over.</blockquote><div><br>
I have nothing to say to this other than that assuming the best is not disaster planning, it is lunatic naivete. </div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
......... media attention shifted to Biloxi and<br>the coastal regions east .......<br><br>The next morning, NO is beginning to flood, roads<br>are completely blocked ..............<br><br>SO please, explain what, exactly, would you have done?
</blockquote><div><br>
I am not a professional disaster planner. Several things I would have done had I been President:<br>
<br>
(1) I would have hired someone with emergency management experience to
head up the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I probably would have
made sure he hadn't been fired for gross incompetence from a job
judging horses. I would make sure that he talked to me on a reasonably
regular basis, rather than being cut out of the Cabinet entirely. <br>
<br>
Brown isn't even CPR-certified, for God's sakes.<br>
<br>
(2) When I was made aware that a hurricane would likely kill thousands
of people in a major American city (in 2001), my proposed budget would
have, say, kept funding levels constant, rather than dropping Army
Corps of Engineers funding, cutting disaster mitigation funds to the
entire state of Louisiana, and defunding the levee-building project
designed to keep a catastrophic flood from occurring. <br>
<br>
(3) I would probably not play guitar on my ranch in Texas while an
enormous storm swept through the birthplace of jazz two states away. My
first concern would not be Trent Lott's summer home.<br>
<br>
(4) I would not have flown into New Orleans and grounded all
helecopters for a day in order to get Potemkin Village pictures taken
on top of the levee.<br>
</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I did hear that so far, the "official" death<br>count is 59, but it is expected to go higher. We
<br>can all hope that it does not increase at all.</blockquote><div><br>
The de-mort teams haven't even enterred the state of Louisiana yet.
Most of the places where dead bodies are are unsafe an inaccessable.
Plus, I have, I think personally seen more than 59 bodies in the media.<br>
<br>
> LA is a predominantly democratic state. Can you imagine what
would happen if the Feds (a Republican <br>
> administration) used their
resources and authority to take control of the martial law activities,
law enforcement, etc. in <br>
> LA. <br>
<br>
The civil disorder in New Orleans started because the federal
government couldn't have food supplies (which, I might add, are a
resource that state governments simply don't have) in place within 72
hours of a disaster they had three days warning for. They couldn't have
food ready within six days of being told they needed it there. Food
showed up in Banda Aceh with 48. I don't ask for much from the
government, but I do ask that the government be more competent than
Suharto's corrupt autocracy.<br>
<br>
Even Harry Connick Jr., who sucks, and CNN reporters, who suck more, showed up ahead of the MREs. <br>
<br>
> No, those decisions rest with elected
state officials. The governor controls the National Guard. US
military are <br>
> not permitted to act as police officers on US soil. It
would take an act of Congress (and probably a constitutional <br>
> amendment)
to allow that. As many security experts reported today, it does
appear that there was little or no <br>
> command and control at the state or
local level.<br>
</div>First, let me say that by even responding to this, I'm
buying the premise that the federal government should put political
concerns (a fight with the Louisiana state government) over human
lives, and that the people of Louisiana would tolerate that from their
political leaders. This premise is idiotic on its face. If this were
true, it'd still be enough for people to be fired over.<br>
<br>
Second, you mean the same state of Louisiana that has 5/7 of its
national House seats controlled by Republicans, 1/2 of its Senate seats
controlled by Republicans, and that voted for Bush in the last national
election? That state, whose voters clearly have no sympathy for
Republicans whatsoever?<br></div><br>
-- ACS<br>