Kurt Ullman

In article <df9tt5$qbp$>, "Mike McKinley"
<> wrote:
    >"Kurt Ullman" <> wrote in message
    >news:ec_Re.5154$...
    >> The other thing to remember, is that under the Constitution and
    >> disaster laws, the Feds are a subsidiary of the State. All Guard
    >> units, no matter which state they are from, are AUTOMATICALLY
    >> chopped to the command and control of the local governor. Same with
    >> the FEMA types. They can only do what the locals will let them.
    > According to the Constitution, only the Congress, not the President, has
    >the sole power to declare war, however that has been conveniently
    >sidestepped continually during the latter half of the 20th Century.
    > Your rationale is unconvincing.
BZZT. Thanks for playing, but the Constitution also states that
Congress has the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers". That
certainly covers the War Power Act. .
Of course the most interesting part of the War Powers Act is
that no one has actually had the guts to put it in front of the
courts. I think all sides are afraid of what might happen and both
might lose a way to take umbrage when the Pres from other side tries
to do something.

Mike Kruger

"Bill Sornson" <> wrote in message
news:AqRRe.58$...
    > wrote:
    >> Bob the Cow wrote:
    >>> And if
    >>> Bush had approved it, and the hurricane come a year later after the
    >>> stuff was all installed, the Bush-haters would have vilified him for
    >>> wasting all the gummint's money on the whiz-bang high-tech pumping
    >>> stations. Even if Halliburton hadn't installed them.
    >> :-) As if there would be a chance Halliburton wouldn't get the job!
    > As usual, Frank misses the point.

Frank can defend himself. But there's a general set of points here:
1. In any disaster, people will play politics.
Disaster plans are plans made by committees (of politicians/administrators
who often don't believe they will ever have to carry them out). It's hard
to avoid "rosy scenarios" in this type of thinking, such as the revelation
today that New Orleans' plans assumed the levees would hold (they might be
topped by water, but wouldn't break). Since they have several breaks, it's
pretty obvious this reasoning was over-optimistic. But, to avoid being
blamed yourself you have to find somebody else to blame.

On a different thread, another poster wants to blame pre-World War I
"engineer and inventor A.
Baldwin Wood [for his] enacted his ambitious plan to drain the city,
including large
pumps of his own design which are still used". This approach safely blames
the dead, who may be more mobile in New Orleans right now if the coffins are
floating again, but still dead and unlikely to talk back. I predict a lot of
blaming of the dead. This will be Huey Long's fault before the end of
September.

2. Today, GW is seemingly abandoning his own administration by declaring
"the results are not acceptable" and pledging to whip things into shape. No
need for anybody to defend FEMA when the head guy is hanging them out to
dry.

3. If Katrina had hit New Orleans during the year 1999 (i.e. after several
years of the Clinton administration) would the results have been different?
Certainly the same levees would have likely failed in the same way. Would
FEMA have responded more rapidly? I seem to remember a lot of complaints
about FEMA over my adult life, so I'm not sure FEMA would have done better.

4. You can't prepare for everything. But it seems remarkable to think that
we are unprepared to deliver emergency supplies for several days after a
disaster for which we had a few days warning. That, to me, is the scary
part. I would have thought we would have been able to helicopter in abundant
food and water beginning Tuesday, along with the military force necessary to
dole it out reasonably fairly.

We can't protect against all disasters, since we can't even begin to list
all possible disasters. But we should be able to rapidly provide basic stuff
almost anywhere in the country quickly.

5. Some of the statements of various politicians seem misleading in the
extreme. For example, when Bush was interviewed by Diane Sawyer, he made a
big deal out of opening up the petroleum reserves. Bush, as a Texas oilman,
would surely be aware that the biggest short term problem is lack of
refinery / port / pipeline capacity. Bush surely isn't alone in the
misleading statement category, but I'm tired and will let other people
nominate their favorites.

Kurt Ullman

In article <c81Se.7958$>, "Mike
Kruger" <> wrote:

    >4. You can't prepare for everything. But it seems remarkable to think that
    >we are unprepared to deliver emergency supplies for several days after a
    >disaster for which we had a few days warning. That, to me, is the scary
    >part. I would have thought we would have been able to helicopter in abundant
    >food and water beginning Tuesday, along with the military force necessary to
    >dole it out reasonably fairly.
There were within hours around 10,000 troops (in addition to
local cops, etc) in the area. According to the in-place disaster
plans. There were 1700 trucks with MREs, water, etc. sitting in the
staging area and moved in, a similar number being loaded up for the
second influx, there were 14 urban search and rescue teams, 20+
disaster medical units, Coasties had choppers in the air from as far
away as Cape Cod before the first day was out. There was a ton of
stuff there from the feds and that did not include the non-gov units
like ARC and Sal Army.



    >We can't protect against all disasters, since we can't even begin to list
    >all possible disasters. But we should be able to rapidly provide basic stuff
    >almost anywhere in the country quickly.

We did, to extent that the plans call for. When the plans are
overwhelmed, you can't just miraculously move people into the area
by beaming them in. You have to figure out what you need, find the
people with those skills, get them to a staging area, get them
equipt (if they aren't going to be self-sufficient for an extended
period of time all you have done is add refugees dressed in green),
you have find and bring in the airlift or sea lift or ground lift
capacity to get them and their stuff where it needs to go. You have
to find a place to put up their base camp, etc.
Within 7 days just the military and Guard (not including the
other non-gov and FEMA assets like the SAR and medical teams) there
will be 6 Navy ships on site, with more on the way, over 30,000
troops directly on the ground as of now with more on the way.
You also have to remember that isn't JUST NO, although you
would hardly know it from the others. The disaster areas are more
than 90,000 square miles involving over 5 million people.
BTW: Did I mention that all of the Guard units, under federal
law and the Constitution are automatically put under the command and
control of the governor and the Pres is not involved. The gov could
have called the Guard into the Dome any time he wanted to so that
LZs could be established (Reuters has pictures of choppers trying to
land at the Dome but couldn't because of the crush of people). Might
have also been useful in crowd control elsewhere in the complex.
NO basically turns on two problems that went against all
assumptions that the plans were built on. One is that the Dome would
be available as a large shelter afterwards and that the levess would
hold. Had either not occurred then we wouldn't be having this
conversation. But then as Sun Tsu noted in another context, crisis
plans seldom survive contact with the crisis.
The outcome of all this will be most areas will dust off the
disaster plans, look them over and talk about it. Half will decide
they are cool and put them back, 1/4 will tinker around the edges
and 1/4 will make major changes. All will miss the piece that comes
back to bite them if the excrement ever hits the air circulation
device.


    >5. Some of the statements of various politicians seem misleading in the
    >extreme. For example, when Bush was interviewed by Diane Sawyer, he made a
    >big deal out of opening up the petroleum reserves. Bush, as a Texas oilman,
    >would surely be aware that the biggest short term problem is lack of
    >refinery / port / pipeline capacity. Bush surely isn't alone in the
    >misleading statement category, but I'm tired and will let other people
    >nominate their favorites.
Yet he was being castigated by some Dems for not doing so
earlier. I acutally had a guy on another thread suggest that he
should have done something even if meant nothing just to placate
people.

Rhythmwize

In article <KC1Se.5286$>, Kurt Ullman
says...

Regarding the disaster response, even Bush had to admit the results were
UNACCEPTABLE.

    > NO basically turns on two problems that went against all
    >assumptions that the plans were built on. One is that the Dome would
    >be available as a large shelter afterwards and that the levess would
    >hold.

The plans were built upon the assumption that the city would not experience
anything greater then a Cat 3 hurricane. A plan like that is also UNACCEPTABLE.

Derek Lyons

"Bob the Cow" <> wrote:

    >> We now end our contributions of actual facts and return you to your
    >> rants.
    >The other thing to consider is the magnitude of the disaster itself.
    >Imagine a 27-foot (8+ meters) wall of water inundating whatever whiz-bang
    >high-tech pumping station and levee the gummint could have built.

<nods> And yet another thing to consider - the levees that failed
*first* were ones that were recently repaired and upgraded to
standards.

There's simply no way to ensure that nothing will fail, ever, under
any conditions. The world simply doesn't work that way.

D.

Derek Lyons

"Mike Kruger" <> wrote:

    >4. You can't prepare for everything. But it seems remarkable to think that
    >we are unprepared to deliver emergency supplies for several days after a
    >disaster for which we had a few days warning. That, to me, is the scary
    >part. I would have thought we would have been able to helicopter in abundant
    >food and water beginning Tuesday, along with the military force necessary to
    >dole it out reasonably fairly.

The problem is that there is a *vast* area that needs emergency
supplies. New Orleans is just a small fraction of the area and people
involved in this disaster, (even if arguably they got the worst).

Furthermore, choppering in significant supplies on Tuesday means
getting 'em rolling Fri or Sat at the latest. Even then you have to
pray that you get them a) close enough to respond quickly and b) far
enough away that they don't get in the path of the storm themselves.

(Heck - the Army *practices* and is *equipped* to do this kind of
thing, moving vast amounts of materials and supplies, and it takes
them a week to move a 10,000 man division more than a hundred miles or
so.)

These things take time and are not as easy as many people seem to
think.

D.

Mike Kruger

"Kurt Ullman" <> wrote in message
news:KC1Se.5286$...
    > "Mike Kruger" <> wrote:
    >>4. ...I would have thought we would have been able to helicopter in
    >>abundant
    >>food and water beginning Tuesday, along with the military force necessary
    >>to
    >>dole it out reasonably fairly.
    > There were within hours <snipped detail>. There was a ton of
    > stuff there from the feds and that did not include the non-gov units
    > like ARC and Sal Army.

Not enough. Even your analogy isn't enough. You wrote "there was a ton of
stuff", but we both know that a ton is a drop in the bucket in these cases.
(and yes, I know you meant that as a figure of speech). The point isn't the
impressive numbers, the point is that whatever the numbers were, they
weren't enough (or at least quickly enough).

    >>We can't protect against all disasters, since we can't even begin to list
    >>all possible disasters. But we should be able to rapidly provide basic
    >>stuff
    >>almost anywhere in the country quickly.
    > We did, to extent that the plans call for. When the plans are
    > overwhelmed, you can't just miraculously move people into the area
    > by beaming them in. <snipped good points about why it's hard>

Yes, but it's fair to second guess the plans in cases like this, considering
this is a lot less of a surprise situation than, say, Sept 11 was. Were the
plans reasonable? Or was there a bit of "groupthink" that led to these plans
assuming that the levees would hold?

Neil Brooks reply expresses a lot of things I wish I'd said.

    > Within 7 days just the military and Guard (not including the
    > other non-gov and FEMA assets like the SAR and medical teams) there
    > will be 6 Navy ships on site, with more on the way, over 30,000
    > troops directly on the ground as of now with more on the way.

Within 7 days? That's what strikes me. We have enough stuff, we just don't
seem to get it there fast enough.

By weak analogy, this is like a batch processing system. It can often
process records at very high speeds, but it can't get you anything at all
NOW, only after the batch runs (tonight? alternate Tuesdays?).

    > You also have to remember that isn't JUST NO, although you
    > would hardly know it from the others. The disaster areas are more
    > than 90,000 square miles involving over 5 million people.

Good point. Easier to get media shots in NO.

    > BTW: Did I mention that all of the Guard units, under federal
    > law and the Constitution are automatically put under the command and
    > control of the governor and the Pres is not involved.

You were reading my postings as an anti-Bush rant. That's not completely
unrealistic, given my past postings. But I'm not an apologist for the
governor of Louisiana either. It's her state (and the mayor's city), and
they can reasonably be expected to be more familiar with the conditions than
the president of the US, who has a lot of things to pay attention to. In
fact, that's probably the logic behind that federal law.

    > NO basically turns on two problems that went against all
    > assumptions ... But then as Sun Tsu noted in another context, crisis
    > plans seldom survive contact with the crisis.

Yes, good point -- although Sun Tsu doesn't allow the commander to use this
as an excuse for underperformance.

    >>5. Some of the statements of various politicians seem misleading in the
    >>extreme. For example, when Bush ...

    > Yet he was being castigated by some Dems for not doing so
    > earlier. I acutally had a guy on another thread suggest that he
    > should have done something even if meant nothing just to placate
    > people.

I'm not here to defend all Democrats. The job is much too big for anyone.
Personally, I think meaningless gestures are meaningless, but that's just
me.

Dave Vandervies

In article <>,
Tom Keats <> wrote:
    >In article <df8mpt$7jo$>,
    > (Dave Vandervies) writes:
    >> The only ones
    >> that shouldn't have added "as fast as can be done without stepping on
    >> each others' toes" are government and public safety workers managing
    >> the evacuation, but even there, they should be bringing up the rear,
    >> not sticking around after everybody else is gone.
    >I suspect they were among the first to leave.

That's the impression I get from what I've heard, and is an indicator
of Serious Problems no matter what else is going on.

But what I was addressing here was the claim that not everybody can
"just leave their job to evacuate". That claim doesn't hold up if
there's a cat 5 hurricane on the way.


dave

Derek Lyons

SMS <> wrote:

    >appkiller wrote:
    >> <snippage of jaba the hut's rantings>
    >>
    >> Ya know, they were working to create a much more storm surge/flood-safe
    >> New Orleans until Bushco cut the funding for it.
    >Very true. They just mentioned that today. In 2001, he cut the funding
    >for the Army Corps of Engineers work on protecting New Orleans. You reap
    >what you sow.

And Clinton cut it 1995, 1996, 1997, and 2000. Bush is reaping what
*he* sowed as well.

D.

Kurt Ullman

In article <>, Rhythmwize
<> wrote:
    >In article <KC1Se.5286$>, Kurt Ullman
    >says...
    >Regarding the disaster response, even Bush had to admit the results were
    >UNACCEPTABLE.
    >> NO basically turns on two problems that went against all
    >>assumptions that the plans were built on. One is that the Dome would
    >>be available as a large shelter afterwards and that the levess would
    >>hold.
    >The plans were built upon the assumption that the city would not experience
    >anything greater then a Cat 3 hurricane. A plan like that is also
    > UNACCEPTABLE.
In hind sight by someone whose expertise on the subject is
pretty much limited to being able to type on Usenet. (Mine is pretty
much the same, truth to tell, so I defer to the people with the
expertise and the facts..) It was only the 5th higher than category
3 to hit since 1890s and none in more than 30 years (Camille).
Apparently the emergency planners, as has been noted in other
contexts, wed their plans closer than they did their spouses.
Did I mention, in regards to the other keystone, that the
architects said the Dome would stay together up to 200 miles an
hour?