Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A Neutral Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (65)	9/12/2005 12:45:20 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2253

There are 50 state governments and perhaps 200 local governments that can react to major disaster. I think it should be noted that there are thousands and thousands of local governments that can react to a major disaster. Even the tiniest hamlet has some type of plan. It may not be entirely clear as to how far these state and local authorities can be effective in major disasters. Unfortunately, it is almost always impossible to know for sure until after the disaster occurs. (And this is precisely why some disasters turn out to be disasters instead of inconveniences.) For some rarely used capabilities, it would be silly to duplicate those resources. I think everyone agrees about that - it is probably a question of scale, though. There are definite roles that state and local authorities can fulfill. And there is a definite role that Federal government can and has to fulfill. I think that is pretty much a given, don't you? I have yet to see anyone but a crackpot or two argue otherwise, have you? It seems that without a doubt that the federal authorities should be charged with the task of coordinating activities with local officials. Once the feds are involved, it is my understanding that is exactly what they do. I think that is part of the mission statement for FEMA. Ideally there should be some plan in place to coordinate activities with local authorities before disaster strikes. Not quite sure what you mean here, Mary. It would be next to impossible to generate plans for every conceivable disaster in every corner of our country, natural and man-made, before it actually occurs. If you are talking about arrangements to cooperate already being in place in the event a disaster occurs, those arrangements have existed, and worked very well on the whole, for decades. If you are pointing to this one unique disaster and saying that those arrangements were not in place, I don't believe that the facts support that proposition. We still don't know enough of the facts to know what, if anything, went wrong. We are all Americans. We all speak the same language (most of us anyway). There is no reason to treat each other as if we were from different tribes. We don't have to say to each other, "my way or the highway". I agree. Other than partisans seeking to score political points (a worthless exercise, IMO), I have yet to see anyone arguing that such should be the case. To suggest privitizing or outsourcing of these responsibilities would also be ridiculous (are they really training emergency management officials in Bangalore <ggggg>). Much of our federal response is outsourced and has been since the inception of FEMA. FEMA only has 2500 employees. BTW, I read that FEMA was worrying about getting 400 generators to NO last week at the same time Home Depot already had 20,000 available. Something to think about. Emergency management for large scale disasters is not beyond our abilities. It is not rocket science. I agree. And this most recent disaster was managed. Perhaps you thought it slow and inefficient, but the record shows that the response time was actually faster, despite unheard of geographic obstacles, than the response time to previous disasters. Yes, there were lots of mistakes by a variety of agencies, some with devastating consequences, but that is an unfortunate fact of life in disaster response. The organizations that respond take note of those failures and mistakes and try to find ways to avoid them in the future. Lets not play the blame game. That is blame eveybody in the world. We have to blame the people that were responsible. That statement is self-contradictory, I think. Would you like to clarify it?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (65)	9/12/2005 1:01:05 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2253

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.