Natalee Holloway was a stupid whore / Katrina

[chrisfan]

I'm not saying that nothing should have been done ... I"m saying that a realistic approach should have been, and should be now, taken to looking at the situation. We live with a mindset these days that man can fix and control anything - that's bullshit. But the problem with creating such a mindset is that when we face a situation that man cannot control - a category 5 hitting New Orleans straight on, or the buildings that will be destroyed one day by the big one in San Francisco - people are shocked by it. They say things like "We can put a man on the moon, why can't we prevent people from dying in a hurricane?" BECAUSE THE MOON IS NOT LABELED A NATURAL DISASTER.

Does that mean that we should not take steps to prevent as much as we can? Absolutely not! (please see my previous comments in my second post today where I said exactly that.) But we need to look at those steps realistically - they help, but they are not perfect. While we're lamenting the corruption that contributed to the failure of the levees, we need to recognize and highlight that we can't prevent everything, and need to be prepared accordingly. When we focus on man's "failures" in a situation like this, as the primary focus, we give people a false sense of security believing that man can control anything. That's BS. There are parts of the world that have the potential to be in some pretty damn dangerous situations regarding natural disasters, and no amount of spending or effort by man is going to change that. We need to look at that realistically and prepare accordingly.

[Mary]

I agree with you up to a point, Chrisfan. I genuinely think it's very important for people to accept that unpredictable and uncontrollable tragedy is a part of life, and to reconcile themselves to this, and not to always look for people to blame to account for tragedy. In many ways I have the same feelings about some of the rhetoric surrounding the "war on terror", insofar as I think terrorism, although obviously not a natural disaster, is nothing we can triumph over ultimately and definitively, short of some kind of unimaginable reconstruction of the entire world order.

However, I do worry in some situations that this position can too easily become a means of excusing human incompetence. In the case of Katrina, I think the extent of the incompetence and irresponsibility is vast and needs to be focused on - in minute detail, if necessary. Certainly natural disasters are just that - natural - and thus on some level unpredictable and uncontrollable. However it's no secret that disasters have different impacts on different communities, and often these differing impact are not solely the result of physical geography, but also the result of socioeconomic and political conditions. So I think it's important for us to shine a light on the way in which these factors can increase or decrease the tragic impact of a natural disaster.

Cheers,
M

[kmc]

Chrisfan, is it your assertion that people did everything they could to prevent the disaster that was Katrina? Because unless it is, then you don't really disagree with anyone. Yes, natural disasters happen. Can we do more to prevent their effects? Yes. Could everyone have done more to prevent Katrina fallout? Yes. What are we arguing here?

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Hey Chrisfan, I'm taking a page out of Shin's book. Why are you making excuses for the people that failed the people of New Orleans? I honestly don't expect human beings to stop natural disasters. It's impossible. On the other hand, how bad do you think the damage would have been had the levees been up to where they were suppose to be? The deal with San Francisco is that there really isn't anything preventative that can be done on it's impending situation. You can only hope that we have a response plan like that of September 11th and get people help as fast as we can. I have heard that San Francisco has a nice Port Authority so I'm hoping that it won't be another FEMA disaster.

New Orleans could have been prevented very easily. With the erosion of Wetlands and not spending the money on Levees they got a disaster. Pretty easy if you ask me.

[chrisfan]

I don't believe it is accurate to say that nothing can be done to prevent the impending situtation ... any more than New Orleans and flooding. As Mary mentioned, engineering advances have given us better ways to build buildings in earthquake prone zones. The building codes have been altered to reflect those advances. It is reasonable and logical to expect people to adhere to those codes. But it is imperative that while we do that, we also make sure that people fully understand the risk - that the building codes are NOT 100% and that the risk is still there, and an earthquake strong enough will destroy it all, regardless of the codes.

Accordingly, things can be done to prevent flooding to some level in New Orleans. The levees, in the shape they were in, had prevented flooding for quite some time. But before Katrina hit, we were told over and over that the powers tha be weren't sure if they'd hold. And had the storm been any greater, the disaster would have been much bigger. You put man against nature, and nature will win every time.

I agree with you that this particular disaster in New Orleans could have been prevented easily. I don't think it's merely a question of the levees. I think that questions should have been raised LONG ago as to whether or not it was logical to have a city the size of New Orleans located where it was. In many ways, the size the city grew to was its own worst enemy. But when we're doing the Monday morning quarterbacking and placing blame, it is imperative that we're humble enough to recognize the limitations of man along with the failures.

[kmc]

I think that's fair, and I wouldn't be the person to say Katrina devastation was simply any given man's fault. But it is fair that we assess and prepare for plausible uncontrollable danger whenever possible. Could we keep the hurricane from happening? No, of course not, just like we can't stop earthquakes or monsoons. We certainly did not do everything we could do to keep Katrina from being what it was. It wasn't just George Bush. But the crux of the criticism against the administration is how ill prepared they were to handle the fall out from the disaster, and not what they failed to do to prevent it.

[chrisfan]

Absolutely - we do everything we can to prepare for uncontrollable danger whenever possible. But in doing so, we MUST admit to and recognize our limitations in that regard. I think the biggest problem with the levees is the false sense of security they created. How many people didn't evacuate when they were told to, because they figured the levees would keep them safe? How many news reports were there in the period of time after Katrina made landfall before the flooding started that said "Whew, we dodged a big one" as if it were over? How little urgency was communicated until it was too late with regards to the evacuation? Why on earth were places IN New Orleans EVER treated as feesible shelters?

All I am saying here is that it is imperative that when we are taking the necessary precautions in preparation for possible disasters, that we also present a realistic "we can't do everything" view of those preparations. When you compare the way Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco were preparing people in New Orleans to the way that Florida officials prep Floridians every time a storm is coming (which ALWAYS comes with the instructions - "Assume we will NOT get to you for a minimum of three days") that realisitic picture simply was not painted. That is why almost a year later, when people speak of Katrina, they think New Orleans - close to oblivious to the fact that the brunt of the storm did not even hit there.

We need to prepare - both the government taking the necessary precautions in infrastructure and building codes, and individuals with things like emergency kits and individual evacuation plans. But we also must recognize the level of disaster that we cannot control, and that we have to either surrender to, or get the hell out of it's path.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

There's some great history books out there on the history of New Orleans, how it was founded and so on. You should read them, Chrisfan.

[chrisfan]

I have Skvor. With a grandfather who spent his career working on the Mississippi River, and the levees (and who BTW at his retirement said that he didn't honestly think they'd accomplished a thing of any solid worth during his career) it's a subject I'm quite familiar with.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

You are confusing sometimes, you know that?

[chrisfan]

This is utter bullshit.

FEMA Denies Aid to Homeowners, Tells Fairfax to Help Its Own More
County's Affluence Noted; Arlington, Alexandria Also Lose Out
By Lisa Rein and Bill Turque
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page B03
Fairfax County homeowners hit hard by heavy rains and flooding in late June are not eligible for federal aid because they live in an affluent community that should address its own needs, an official for the Federal Emergency Management Agency said yesterday.

Rest of the story can be found here [/color].

[luke]

Sounds like FEMA is just looking for an excuse to not do anything, as they're not too big on helping the poor out, either.

[rockkid]

I’m starting to think FEEBLE would be more accurate.

[luke]

I have serious "Heat Wave Fatigue." Now there's something you won't hear about on CNN.

[Fuzznuts]

You're tired of hearing about it too? Fucking pussies, I say.