What really bothers me about the katrina fiasco

This is a discussion on What really bothers me about the katrina fiasco within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; I had been sort of the token conservative on the boards, a staunch supporter of the war in iraq and ...

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,041

    What really bothers me about the katrina fiasco

    I had been sort of the token conservative on the boards, a staunch supporter of the war in iraq and various other bush issues, so I figured you guys would derive pleasure from seeing me express utter distain for the emperor.

    One of the things that truly bothers me is that after 911, and all of these major changes in the dept of homeland security, blah blah blah, the federal government clearly doesn't have a mechanism in place for being able to evacuate a large city after a large-scale disaster, whether it be a terrorist attack or an act of god. Bush can manage to put a large force into the euphrates area halfway across the world, a region perpetually fought over throughout history, but even after the worst attack on US soil people were left unprotected and without supplies for far too long, often for dead. The american people showed more proaction by donating blood, supplies and money (which we should still be doing) than the damn governing body of the most powerful country in the world.

    This, to me, is as scary as the possibility of a terrorist attack.


    End rant.

    Discuss.
    I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.

  2. #2
    5|-|1+|-|34|) ober's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    4,429
    uhh... we all knew that about a month ago. What's your point?
    EntropySink. You know you have to click it.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,041
    My point is that not everybody makes the connection between these two seemingly unrelated events: 9-11 and the disaster. On the news they hype the emotional part of it about the suffering of people, relief funds, etc, but a large problem I haven't seen adequately touched upon is that even after 9-11 the federal government can't efficiently respond to something like this. And obviously a month means nothing, since homeland security has allegedly been undergoing radical reform for the past four years. It's supposed to be designed to handle nuclear fallout of three major cities simultaneously, but can't handle this.

    That's my point.

    EDIT: and I thought it was important enough to start a thread that might lead to a discussion about, you know, better protecting the states since the government clearly can't do it. Hell, maybe we can all sign a petition and send it to congress (or to the CProg special interest lobbyist)
    Last edited by BobMcGee123; 10-25-2005 at 11:38 AM.
    I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.

  4. #4
    5|-|1+|-|34|) ober's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    4,429
    You read the news, right? ... Actually, it seems you might not. And no offense, but talking about this on an internet forum between a bunch of geeks and nerds isn't going to protect the states any better. What are you going to do? Go out and create a well-funded, live-to-donate national militia that isn't going to be squashed by the government?

    Excuse me while I sit here and laugh.
    EntropySink. You know you have to click it.

  5. #5
    Lead Moderator kermi3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1998
    Posts
    2,595

    Exclamation

    Ok...I'm going to make a little bit of a distinction here.

    There was a plan to evacuate New Olreans. It is called counta-flow, and it was put into effect for the second time ever for Katrina. It was used the first time for a hurricane last year - and it was a complete fiasco. However, the revised plan used for katria worked very well.

    The plan basically involves stoping all inbound interstate traffic to the metro area and using all the lanes of I-55, I-10, and other highways to go outbound:
    http://www.dotd.state.la.us/maps/Web_ContraFlow.jpg

    It was very effective. The problem with evacuation was that people either (a) would not leave, (b) medically could not leave, (c) finicially could not leave, or (d) did not believe that the risk from the hurricane was greater than the risk of missing work for a few days. The fact that there was no plan to get the poor and the sick out - yea, that was somebody's fault. The fact that people didn't leave - that's arguably someone's fault.

    The fact that supplies weren't ready to go in as soon as the dust started to clear - that's someone's fault. The fact that the FEMA director was a political appointee with no expirence, that's someone (Bush's) fault. The fact that the pump houses were not built to withstand a hurricane, that's someone's fault. The fact that the levies had not been updated despite Army Corps and Louisiana's congressional delegation's warning, that's someone (congress') fault. There are plenty of things that are someone's fault, lack of an evacuation plan for the general population was not one of them.
    Kermi3

    If you're new to the boards, welcome and reading this will help you get started.
    Information on code tags may be found here

    - Sandlot is the highest form of sport.

  6. #6
    5|-|1+|-|34|) ober's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    4,429
    Well, I don't think Bob is keying on the evacuation process here ... I think he's taking a poke at the recovery process.... which again, is like beating a dead horse.
    EntropySink. You know you have to click it.

  7. #7
    Registered User white's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    39
    I 'll try to make a different point....imagine (doesn't require a lot of imagination since you know exactly what happened) how long help took to take place (I mean food medicine..etc) inside the US. Now image what kind of help people in Iraq get.... I am just saying this because some people are actually believing the the US helps Iraqi people.

    And what happened happened because all the funds went into a meaningless stupid war (I mean North Korea is a greater threat to the US than Iraq but nothing happens there)..so with no money no one could fix the cities to withstand a hurricane or whatever physical disaster.

    Apart from that it is far from obvious by checking some simple statistics that US might be the one to blame for the strength of Katrina. EXPLANATION: All natural phenomena and especially all hurricanes have increased their strength by 50% tha last 30 years around the US and China. Guess what US and China has the most pollution compared with anyone...and it's not due to the size...if someone will go to beijing will know exactly what I mean.

    China and the US has to stop disobeying international pollution limits...because it affects us all
    ----------------

  8. #8
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    > All natural phenomena and especially all hurricanes have increased their strength by 50% tha last 30 years around the US and China.

    Oh, bullcrap. I'll be the first to say global warming probably increased the strength, but you're going ot have to back that statistic up.

    > China and the US has to stop disobeying international pollution limits...

    I've never heard of such a thing. Back it up.

  9. #9
    Lead Moderator kermi3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1998
    Posts
    2,595
    Ober, I realize, I just wanted that first point clear. Thanks.


    White - might I recommend that you not make a statement like that without offering data or a reference to a peer reviewed article?

    While pollution is a problem, there are more scientific wholes in your statement than in the proverbial Swiss cheese.

    For example:
    1. A reference
    2. Has there been an increase in storm strength elsewhere?
    3. Does a third, fourth, or fifth variable account for the change in storm strength?
    4. Our detailed history of storm strength only goes back about a 100 years. That's no time at all in the geological/meteorological timeframe.
    5. and most importantly CORRALATEION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION - there is a direct correlation between the number of preachers/ministers in a town and the amount of alcohol sold there. That does not mean ministers cause more people to drink.
    Kermi3

    If you're new to the boards, welcome and reading this will help you get started.
    Information on code tags may be found here

    - Sandlot is the highest form of sport.

  10. #10
    Moderately Rabid Decrypt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI, USA
    Posts
    300
    CORRALATEION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION
    Amen. The first rule of statistics, so often ignored. Brings a tear to my eye to hear someone else yell it for once.

    There are plenty of disturbing issues when it comes to this whole situation. So much so, it's hard to pick one to be most concerned/furious about. Take the events listed on this (obviously biased) website:

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bu...ns_photos.html

    I read about most of these shortly after they happened, but I didn't write the links down, so I can't find the better ones anymore. This has them all in one place, though.
    However, beware the second link. (NOLA). Wow. It seems to be a very anti-semetic forum. It's pretty scary in there. The Salt Lake Tribune and senate.gov links are the most reputable ones, my German isn't so good these days so I can't vouch for the two german links...

    Food for thought, anyway.
    There is a difference between tedious and difficult.

  11. #11
    Slave MadCow257's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by Govtcheez
    I've never heard of such a thing. Back it up.
    The US and China are the number 1 and 2 emmisors of greenhouse gases. If global warming is causing the increase in disasters, then you could partially blame the US goes the argument. The international thing probably refers to the US not ratifying Kyoto, and China was completely exempt.

    Oh, bullcrap. I'll be the first to say global warming probably increased the strength, but you're going ot have to back that statistic up.
    Statistics say that in the past fifty years, the oceans have warmed 1 degree. With that, the number of catergory 4 & 5 hurricanes has doubled.(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9429241/)

    EDIT
    BTW, I'm not saying that warming is the #1 cause of these hurricanes
    Last edited by MadCow257; 10-25-2005 at 05:08 PM.

  12. #12
    & the hat of GPL slaying Thantos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,681
    *Devils Advocate*
    Ok so in the last 50 years the oceans have warmed 1 degree. You still haven't shown the cause of it. You imply a connection between greenhouse gases and global warming, but you have not shown that its the only cause of the warming.
    Possible other causes: A natural warming cycle of the earth, increased solar activity. You imply that since the oceans warmed by 1 degree thats the causes of the stronger hurricanes, but you haven't proved the connection nor have you shown its the only cause. For all we know it could be a predictible weather pattern when viewed in the span of 500 years.
    *End Devil's Advocate*

  13. #13
    carry on JaWiB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,972
    Politics is politics is politics...
    "Think not but that I know these things; or think
    I know them not: not therefore am I short
    Of knowing what I ought."
    -John Milton, Paradise Regained (1671)

    "Work hard and it might happen."
    -XSquared

  14. #14
    It's full of stars adrianxw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    4,831
    Much technical evidence for the effects of global warming, (substitute "nuclear power", "fusion", "disease X" etc. as required), requires an understanding of many inter-related and highly esoteric disciplines.

    As always, the problem is, to understand "it", you need to know far more about "it", and "it's" environment/interelationships. The average Joe, and definitely the average sound bite politician will not.

    You cannot expect a topic, which takes dedicated study for many years, to be understood by the public from an evenings research on the 'net or worse, the media.

    What tends to happen is a few simple to understand concepts float to the surface, which are grabbed my the media and presented in a yet simpler form, (anecdotes and analogs), and the whole truth of the matter is lost. Still, it sells the papers so that's fine.
    Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    64
    I'm reading this thread trying to spot where it went from the very real issue of the US government being unable to help their citizens to discussing the uninteresting issue of "Who is to blame for the hurricane".

    Like Bob, I find it frightening that the US can mobilize, invade and conquer a foreign country half-way around the world in a relatively short amount of time but they are yet unable to deal with a natural disaster on their own soil.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Katrina Aftermath: Woeful Incompetence (rant).
    By anonytmouse in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 09-05-2005, 07:39 AM
  2. Michelin Fiasco
    By sean in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-19-2005, 09:33 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21