Quote:
Quote:
In fairness, I am not always sure what to expect of some elements of our federal government, diminished and underfunded or not. ....


It's about priorities, Jim. FEMA has lost its cabinet-level status, and is now withering away and dying underneath the DHS umbrella. At a time when money for "Homeland Security"* is flowing like the very water that's caused so much anguish, it is scheduled to lose its disaster relief role entirely. And, despite the fact that a hurricane hitting New Orleans was #3 on FEMA's list of threats to our country (the #1 being their dead-on prediction of a terrorist attack on NY), funding for the SELA project to refurbish the levies has been consistently gutted.

Tony, I am your straight man.

I say "in fairness" because I always want to recognize (in my wishy-washy way) that allocation of these types of resources is a risk-benefit calculation and that there is always the possibility of an event occuring that will outstrip allocated resources and planning. I hate to say it, but...hurricane season isn't over.

Possible apologies to Brad here, but I agree with everything you say. And you can look to my sig to where I think all bucks stop. That doesn't mean blame for SELA can't be laid at the doorstep of previous administrations. Right now, though, somebody else has the ball.

My main point, though, was not to emphasize blame in my post but just to say that, whatever else you may think about SELA, global warming, or anything else, the response to Katrina given the phenomenally excellent meteorological intelligence, was woefully inadequate. This situation has become not just a tragedy but a disgrace.

Quote:
Now, if anyone thinks this is Monday morning quarterbacking, and why weren't people up in arms about these issues before, the simple fact is our Government is there to be right about these things. I don't believe they're infallible, regardless of what side of the isle they're on. But the thing that absolutely infuriates me is when beaureaucrats ignore, dismiss, and in many cases cover up the things that their subordinates are uncovering because it doesn't fit their agenda. Do I believe that securing our cities, airports, seaports, etc. from terrorist attack needed to get more funding? Of course. But to totally put all of your eggs in the terrorism basket and ignore the "sh*t happens" principle is an absolute deriliction of the responsibility we entrust our leaders with.

I think I am again your straight man again. I completely agree.

I will tell you one little problem I have:

I can't argue with various CNN reporters and others in electronic media raising the alarm and trying to help the rest of us understand how bad things are. But it strikes me how bold and righteous they are when Shrub's approval rating is, what 35%? Where were the bold reporters of CNN in 2002? I'm sorry, I'm glad they're doing what they're doing, but they still suck. This coming from somebody who probably would kick Shrub if I found him lying down.

Now Nagin I'll listen to.

Quote:

The scariest part about this is that, with a few exceptions, the response to this situation is a good indicator of our preparedness to respond to a terrorist attack. Suppose this were a suitcase nuke instead of a hurricane. The physical results may vary, but the net effect is dead people, refugees, and mass chaos. With the *staggering* amount of money that's been poured into these things, I would think that 4 years after 9/11 our response would be better, even if you grant them the flawed assertion that this was "unpredictable" and "unprecedented."


Homeland Security. When in doubt, reorganize. Makes it look we're accomplishing something.

Sigh. Coffee break's over. Gotta go back to work.

edit: and I *won't* grant them that assertion.


Edited by jimhogan (02/09/2005 15:44)
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.