Re: Here's another take on things
Joe wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in
> news:BKWdnf4A6-JiqrveRVn-sw@giganews.com:
>
>
>>Joe wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>>I have gathered from your posts that you don't care for him.
>
>
> IMO Jebbie's a lousy governor, but he's got a helluva lot of disaster
> experience. Plus he speaks Spanish.
>
> Seriously though, Paulison (our new FEMA director) should be great in
> the position. He's got plenty of experience, as he's been dealing
> with all kinds of messes down here since Andrew.
Does this mean Bush gets just a little credit?
>>The
>>political rancor has gotten so bad that it really doesn't matter
>>what he does because the people that don't like him will never give
>>him credit, even if he deserves it. Heck, even though I didn't like
>>Clinton I gave him credit for quite a few things I felt he did
>>right.
>
>
> Well, check this out: http://tinyurl.com/cuat9
>
> Just saw it tonight.
Do you think the rise in insurance rates is Bush's fault? I think the
rates are going to rise a lot from the fact that home values have risen
too. Especially, in the coastal areas.
><snip>
>>
>>Personally, I think W. will fair well in the history books. I see a
>>lot of parallels between him and Regan in how they were treated
>>while in office. With hind sight I think most people see Regan in a
>>much more positive light than when he was president. I think it
>>could very well be the same with Bush. It will take 20-25 years to
>>really know the effects of the policies he has promoted. Only then
>>can he really be judged. If he can get through his second term
>>without another terrorist attack within our borders then I think he
>>will be viewed quite favorably.
>
>
> I guess we'll agree to disagree.
>
>
><snip>
>>
>>I think we are much safer today than before 9-11 regarding a
>>terrorist attack. I think what has made a difference isn't the
>>security measures you can see but the covert activities we don't
>>see.
>
>
> I sure hope so, because the things we do see apparently don't work too
> well. This goes for everything from natural disasters to screening
> luggage at an airport.
Personally, I think the airport security, the barricades here in DC and
other high profile measures are for public consumption and to detour the
bungling wanna be terrorists. I believe the real war is going on
overseas in places we never hear about and through CIA operations. It
probably has taken years to rebuild the CIA from the castration it
endured through the 1990s. It will probably take several more years to
built it up to what it needs to be.
>>Fact is anyone looking for the government to 100% guarantee
>>their safety is whistling past the graveyard. If we're looking for
>>anywhere near that level of security from terrorism then we had
>>better be prepared to loose most of our freedoms, IMO.
>
>
> Agreed. That level of "safety" is ludicrous. As you say, there's a
> very delicate balance between civil rights and intrusion/erosion of
> those rights in the name of 'security'.
I think this is where Bush doesn't get enough credit. I can't imagine
the stress level he has on a day to day basis. I bet he gets reports of
terrorist plans that would make our blood run cold. We just never hear
about them. I think he also knows that once they are here among us we
will not be able to stop them. Our society is just too open and free
flowing. I think the real war on terror is one we never hear about and
our presence in Iraq helps to fire it more effectively by giving a base
of operation right in the middle of our enemies.
>>It's easy to
>>complain about what the government does or doesn't do but I wonder
>>if anyone complaining could do a better job themselves and not
>>receive criticism from someone. If you asked me on 9-11-2001 what I
>>thought the chance of another attack would be in the next four years
>>I would have said 99%. We haven't had another on our soil up to now
>>and I don't think that is due to dumb luck.
>
>
> I think a large part of it is. Unless our intelligence and covert
> action groups (for lack of a better term) have gone a miraculous
> transformation in the last few years, I think we're still kind of in
> deep doo-doo.
I think the CIA and various intelligence agencies are still scrambling
to be more effective after the beating they took in the 1990s. It has
to take many, many years to develop the network to infiltrate these
groups. I think as time goes on we will become more effective in
neutralizing the threats.
>>>>For them to have the people and
>>>>equipment in place to solely deal with a disaster like Katrina
>>>>would be a huge waste of resources and money. I would also be
>>>>redundant.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then why are all the insurance companies ramping up? Guess what's
>>>going to happen to everybody's premiums. Up until Katrina, it was
>>>mostly Florida that got hit with insurance surcharges, decreased
>>>coverages, and dropped policies. Now, it's going to be national.
>>
>>I assume the price of insurance will go up with the risk they
>>assess. Personally, I think someone living within a mile of the
>>ocean should know they are at a much elevated risk to having their
>>house blown away than a person in a trailer in West Virginia.
>>Consequently, they should pay more for their insurance than the guy
>>living in Montana. Should these people decide to rebuild there
>>homes where they were then they shouldn't complain about high
>>insurance rates. It is people like them that make them high.
>
>
> But the numbers are such that the premiums have to be spread
> nationally, or nobody will be able to afford property 5 miles within
> any beach. Just like with fuel prices, I think everybody will be
> sharing the costs of these kinds of disasters in their insurance
> policies.
I'm sure it will get spread to some degree. As I mentioned earlier, I
think increased home values are going to drive increases as much or more
than the disasters themselves.
>>>>IMO, FEMA was screwed when the state National Guard and local
>>>>police/firemen failed to react per the in-place disaster plans.
>>>>They then had to unexpectedly rely on the regular military and it
>>>>took time to mobilize them. Actually, the Federal response the
>>>>Katrina might be better than it was th Andrew and Hugo.
>>>>http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05254/568876.stm
>>>
>>>
>>>Here's one of the key points in that story:
>>>
>>>"...For instance, it took five days for National Guard troops to
>>>arrive in strength on the scene in Homestead, Fla. after Hurricane
>>>Andrew hit in 1992. But after Katrina, there was a significant
>>>National Guard presence in the afflicted region in three..."
>>>
>>>Personally, I think the response to Andrew was a joke, and the
>>>response to Katrina isn't much better. Three days to help with a
>>>disaster on your own soil is downright shameful.
>>
>>Taking that article at face value it looks like FEMA has improved
>>its response time by 40%. Maybe it still isn't what you consider
>>optimal but it is a substantial improvement.
>
>
> To me these kinds of comparisons are absurd. Only the percentage of
> improvement is considered, not the actual result. It totally removes
> the humanity.
They may be absurd but how else can you compare whether there is
improvement? IMO, disaster relief is like most everything else when it
comes to perfection. It might be easy to reach 90% of the ideal
scenario but to gain the last 10% is impossible or improbable. I don't
see how the Feds can get into a disaster area in a big way in shorter
than the beginning of the 2nd day. The worse the disaster the harder it
will be to response quickly in force. The disaster area this time was
over 90,000 square miles. That is a huge number.
>>I can think of many
>>things that would effect the Feds ability to respond to a disaster.
>>Maybe it just isn't possible to respond much faster than 1-2 days
>>from a logistics standpoint.
>
>
> Sorry, but I simply don't agree. We've deployed forces overseas to
> other countries and provided aid quicker than we've seen in this
> country.
I don't think we get overseas that fast with aid. The relief the world
has provided in Africa alone sometimes takes weeks to get there, if at
all. Hell, so much is stolen during the trip that the people that need
it probably get just a fraction of what is sent. If I told you to get a
trailer full of relief supplies from your home to New Orleans the right
after the hurricane, how long would it take you? Consider all the
destruction and debris you would have to deal with. That is what Feds
deal with on a massive scale. IMO, if the state and municipalities
don't perform or have a good disaster plan and follow it, I don't see
how any aid, in quantity, can get there in less than two days.
>>Trying to mobilize a massive amount of
>>equipment, personnel and supplies from one area of the country to
>>another is probably more complicated than either of us know. Add to
>>this the local infrastructure being obliterated (especially bridges)
>>and the need to clear houses, debris, mud etc. from the roads and
>>getting aid to the needy in quantity could be very difficult and
>>time consuming. To expect the Feds to have given every victim three
>>hots and a cot the day after the hurricane blew through is just
>>plain unrealistic, IMO.
>
>
> You're right in that there are factors we're not aware of. But simply
> put, if we can deploy troops and deliver aid around the world in a
> timely fashion, why not in our own country even quicker? I think this
> is the question that a lot of people have been asking.
I don't think the aid gets there nearly as quick as you think. During
the tsunami in December it took days just to assess the damage. I can't
imagine the number of people that died because aid didn't arrive in the
first couple of days. You may not like Jeb but it looks like he runs a
tight ship when it comes to disaster planning. Any state located in a
hurricane zone should do the same and if they don't the heads of the
people responsible should role. The Feds can't mobilize every time a
hurricane approaches the coast. It just isn't practical. The locals
are already there and are best positioned to help in the first 48 hours.
>>>>>c) It is indeed good that the death count is smaller than expected
>>>>>at this point. Loss of life is never a good thing.
>>>>
>>>>Indeed.
>>>
>>>
>>>I guess my whole point throughout all these posts and threads is
>>>that in a national disaster, whether it's from a natural occurence
>>>like a hurricane or from a terrorist attack, we as a country should
>>>be able to start truly helping victims on our own soil within 18
>>>hours. In this day and age, the only reason why we can't/won't has
>>>nothing to do with ability. It has everything to do with politics
>>>and selfishness, and that's a damn shame.
>>
>>I think we have tricked ourselves into thinking the government (at
>>all levels) can perform miracles. To get aid anywhere in
>>substantial quantities in 18 hours we would need to have personnel,
>>supplies, transportation standing at ready 100% of the time. I
>>doubt this would be feasible.
>
>
> I think that's in place right now. I just don't think it exists for a
> "national disaster". Again, it's the agenda that's the problem.
One good thing that should come out of this is a rethink of how the Feds
function in a disaster. I think the states are going to have to give
the Feds the right to act unilaterally. We've now seen what happens
when a Governor/Mayor fails to perform.
>>IMO, anyone living in a hurricane,
>>earthquake, tornado, or terrorism (I include myself in this one)
>>zone had better be prepared to be their own first responder. If you
>>are lucky enough to get a warning a disaster is coming then got the
>>hell out of Dodge.
>
>
> Of course. But where to go and how to get there? Have you ever had
> to evacuate for a hurricane? Faggedaboudit. If you're not out within
> the first few hours, you're toast. And at that point, you're correct
> - the locals need to have effective, working plans to deal with that
> stuff. But once that starts, the feds need to come in and take over.
> There's way too much bureacracy at all levels right now.
I agree. Trouble is the Feds just can't "take over". They have to be
invited or Bush has to declare martial law or some other drastic measure.
>>The thing that really disgusts me about this disaster is the speed
>>that the Democrats/liberals started using it to their political
>>advantage. It took them an hour to use it in the first hearing today
>>for Robertson's confirmation. What the hell does his nomination
>>have to do with the hurricane victims? Also, they have tried to
>>make it a race issue by saying Bush doesn't care about blacks! Is
>>it just me or do you find it disgusting too?
>
>
> Indeed. But the horror is bipartisan. Nobody's exempt in their
> agendas.
This time though it was started by the left. The day after the
hurricane hit Joe Kennedy was trashing Bush to no end along with several
others. There was no justification for it other than serving their own
selfish interests. It helped no one.