Well, we seem to have the same goal- which is to develop a system that works. However, you seem in some way to be saying that examining the whole system equates with blaming the whole world, and that you place the blame squarely on the feds, absolving the rest, while I believe that in order to create an efficient system, all the parts have certain responsibilities.
I am growing to dislike the word 'blame' more and more since it places everyone in a defensive position rather than a cooperative one.
The system failed not because plans for coordination weren't in place-- they were-- but because they didn't work effectively. Perhaps our disagreement (if there is one) lies in our philosophical differences about the role of the federal gov't in general. But since there is policy in place limiting what the govt can do without specific state invitation, there was a certain rock and hardplace aspect in the situation that caused problems and needs to be addressed.
I'm afraid I miss the point about same language and my way or the highway....? Is someone saying that? I kinda think that is what only focusing on the feds (or the gov, or the mayor, or the levees) does. Response was actually fairly rapid once everyone got on the same page, but there is no question that it was a screwup for a while. Still,that was a product of many factors so I am confused what you mean about not blaming, while blaming. |
