|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 112 responses total. |
nharmon
|
|
response 84 of 112:
| 
Feb 21 03:42 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
crimson
|
|
response 85 of 112:
|
Feb 21 05:09 UTC 2006 |
Re #79: The federal responsibility IMO is to coordinate interstate responses,
and to provide a very limited level of direct support. It seems like you're
expecting them to provide a lot of support, but if multiple disasters occur
they're involved in all of them, while each local level is only involved with
itself.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 86 of 112:
|
Feb 21 13:26 UTC 2006 |
You didn't answer mcnally's last two questions.
|
other
|
|
response 87 of 112:
|
Feb 21 16:36 UTC 2006 |
There are supposed to be plans in place with a coordinator at the county
level. The emergency response coordinator in Cook County, IL is a
dental hygienist. (This was mentioned in a seminar on emergency
preparedness for dental professionals that I shot.)
There is a huge amount of inter-jurisdictional coordination and
decision-making involved in appropriate emergency planning. We can
argue all we want about what went wrong after Katrina and who was
responsible, but I dare say that none of us is adquately informed to
really know the compound complexities of the failure.
We do know that there was corruption and graft at the local level which
prevented resources from being allocated in advance and people being
properly trained and instructed regarding their roles and functions in
such circumstances, and we also know that there was a massive failure at
the highest federal levels to both understand the scale of the problem
and to respond in a timely manner with appropriate resources.
What we don't know is what interations were supposed to happen and
between which persons and in which capacities. We don't know what
resources were supposed to be where and when, and how they were supposed
to get there. We _can_ see that at least some people who were supposed
to know these things also didn't know them, and that is a compound
failing at both local and federal levels.
To claim that this was either and exclusively federal or exclusively
local (and/or state) failing is evidence only of the partisanship of the
claimant. However, to suggest that local and state authorities should
be largely responsible for dealing with a disaster covering an area
running across four states is just as unrealistic as suggesitng that the
federal government should be responsible for managing a disaster
constrained to four city blocks in an urban center. The response in
both cases depends on coordination between officials operating outside
their normal functions, capacities and even lines of communication.
This is why emergency planning and response professionals exist, and why
they should be employed at every level of government in position that
have at times been filled by political patronage.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 88 of 112:
|
Feb 21 16:52 UTC 2006 |
Well said. Even potential disasters that would be pretty well resticted to
one state, such as earthquakes in California, have enormous national
repercusions, and for that reason deserve enormous national attention.
They cannot be solely, or even primrily, the responsibility of the State.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 89 of 112:
|
Feb 21 17:12 UTC 2006 |
Well, we can't have it both ways. If the Federal Government has the
responsibility to respond to disasters, then they have the authority to
step in and say "local emergency manager is relieved, we're taking
over". I have no problem with this, do you?
|
tod
|
|
response 90 of 112:
|
Feb 21 17:13 UTC 2006 |
re #87
I dare say that none of us is adquately informed to
really know the compound complexities of the failure.
Reservists on standby as they have always been during major hurricane disaster
threats when the state of emergency calls go out from state levels?
FEMA/DHS's response: MAJOR lag time (24 hours +)
Timeline of FEMA: very obvious Brown was out to lunch for the
first 24 hours. Lousiana's reserves requested 700 buses and received 100..
Why is that? Federal easily could have brought in 7ton or 5ton trucks(which
happened eventually) to substitute as buses.
Here's a clip:
"in Washington, D.C., that Sunday morning, Michael Chertoff, the US secretary
of homeland security, and Michael D. Brown, director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, were receiving electronic briefings from the National
Weather Service on the possibility of a levee break in the city. Despite the
catastrophic implications, it would take more than a day for Brown to move
to bring FEMA personnel into the region."
"Every forecast from the National Hurricane Center, beginning 56 hours before
the storm struck, had predicted that the hurricane would come ashore at
Category 4 intensity or greater and that it would then pass over or near New
Orleans and the Louisiana-Mississippi border."
There were no compound complexities. Hurricanes are nothing new. FEMA
has responded in the past with haste. This time its big news because FEMA
dropped the ball and people died in horror.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 91 of 112:
|
Feb 21 18:00 UTC 2006 |
Re #89: you *must* have it both ways. There are local resources and
authorities to coordinate with national resources and authorities. It is a
question of balancing these for the most timely and effective response.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 92 of 112:
|
Feb 21 18:32 UTC 2006 |
Both ways meant that the local authorities maintained control over
federal resources. Which would not work.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 93 of 112:
|
Feb 21 18:51 UTC 2006 |
Not at all. Local authorities can allocate resources provided by federal
sources, or request direct assistance from federal sources. You persist in
making everything only A or B but not A and B, or A given B. That does not
optimize the allocation of resources and authority between national and local
responsibilities.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 94 of 112:
|
Feb 21 18:54 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 95 of 112:
|
Feb 21 18:55 UTC 2006 |
Thats fine. You can say the local auhorities, while not able to fully
sustain the recovery effort of the disaster, are still the ones who
manage it. But you can't at the same time blame the Federal government
for not sending in help, when the local authorities told them to hold off.
|
tod
|
|
response 96 of 112:
|
Feb 21 19:08 UTC 2006 |
700 buses were requested. When did they show up?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 97 of 112:
|
Feb 21 19:12 UTC 2006 |
The response to Katrina was mismanaged by both the federal and state
governments. That does not mean that they SHOULD NOT have managed the
response collectively under established guidelines for the resources and
mechanisms provided by each.
|
tod
|
|
response 98 of 112:
|
Feb 21 19:22 UTC 2006 |
Agreed
|
bru
|
|
response 99 of 112:
|
Feb 21 20:23 UTC 2006 |
they were also mismanaged by the city, who Failed to follow their own
edtablished emergency plan. Yhings like not assigning drivers to the several
hundred school buses and city buses left to get flooded, not co-ordinating
with the neighboring Parish Sheriff to allow refugees to walk out across the
bridge, ordering the entire police force OUT of the city leaving the citizens
to fend for themselves,...etc.
And the federal government Failed in several key areas to co-ordinate with
the local authotities. They failed to allow the Red Cross to move in with
food, water, adn emergency supplies for 48 hours while they tried to gain
control of a lawless city. Mostly, they failed to have the facilities to
communicate with the various agencies, to make the various radios communicate
with each other. They still have not leaarned the lessons of 9/11.
But there were sucesses as well. Read the article in this months Popular
mechanics about the massive federal response that saved thousands from
rooftops, the hundreds of boats that were brought in and saved people stranded
in their homes.
Now, why have the OTHER states devestated by Katrina NOT failed in their
emergency plan? Because they FOLLOWED their emergency plan. They lost
property and people as well, though not in as confined an area. The LOCAL
people responded and helped their neighbors.
Once again, make sure YOU have teh facilities to help yourself should an
emergency hit yoou in your neighborhood.
|
tod
|
|
response 100 of 112:
|
Feb 21 20:32 UTC 2006 |
Yea, keep a hot air balloon handy if you live on a liquifaction zone prone
to earthquakes. *snort*
|
gull
|
|
response 101 of 112:
|
Feb 24 07:20 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:62: I realize I'm fighting some serious drift here, but whether
she's "full of shit" or not isn't the point. The question is, is it
sedition to write what she did?
I feel lately like we're headed toward a North Korea-style cult of
personality, where the "dear leader" is synonymous with the country and
to criticize him is to be viewed as dangerous and unpatriotic.
|
other
|
|
response 102 of 112:
|
Feb 24 11:19 UTC 2006 |
She's technically on the border of seditions, since her wourds could
legitimately be interpreted as an incitement to violent rebellion, even
if that is an unlikely interpretation. The point is that she should
have chosen her words less ambiguously.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 103 of 112:
|
Feb 24 17:34 UTC 2006 |
Right. She should have been "subtle" like former Senator Jesse Helms
was when he suggested then-President Clinton not visit a military base
in North Carolina because his safety couldn't be guaranteed.. But it
is good practice to choose your words carefully.
re #101: Given how strongly critical a large segment of the population
is, I doubt we're headed any further towards the scenario you suggest.
However, as long as the "unpatriotic" smear works even to a limited
extent against critics of the government it will continue to be employed
by this administration.
|
klg
|
|
response 104 of 112:
|
Feb 24 17:54 UTC 2006 |
Yeah, right. As if you could cite one instance of where the Bush
administration has called anyone unpatriotic.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 105 of 112:
|
Feb 24 18:01 UTC 2006 |
directly, or in his weasle-face rovian manner?
he has no balls.
|
tod
|
|
response 106 of 112:
|
Feb 24 18:17 UTC 2006 |
re #104
White House spokesman Scott McClellan compared retired Marine Colonel John
Murtha of Pennsylvania to the lefty filmmaker Michael Moore after Murtha
suggested a six-month timetable pulling troops out of Iraq.
"What we're hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements
and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war," Cheney
said. "The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to
these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out."
"The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their
memory, or their backbone. But we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite
history. We're going to continue throwing their own words back at them."
When asked about Cheney's criticism, Murtha, a combat veteran, said: "I like
guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war
and then don't like suggestions about what needs to be done." Murtha was
referring to the fact that Cheney, who had "other priorities" than fighting
for his country, sought and received five deferments during the Vietnam War.
Then it dawned on the White House that, with the president's approval
ratings in the cellar, perhaps it was not a good idea to launch
personal attacks on such a man as Murtha, who has spent his
congressional career backing and helping the military.
So, overnight, the rhetoric changed. From Bush in Asia to Cheney in
Washington, Murtha became an honorable American -- misguided, perhaps,
but no longer a coward or someone who wanted to have terrorists harm
Americans.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 107 of 112:
|
Feb 24 18:46 UTC 2006 |
five deferments. :)
|
tod
|
|
response 108 of 112:
|
Feb 24 18:48 UTC 2006 |
"I went hunting in Texas and all I got was these lousy freckles"
|