Thread: 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.

uhh... we all knew that about a month ago. What's your point?

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

> 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.

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.

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.

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

Politics is politics is politics...

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.