way past ridiculous

andy gee wrote:

BTW, since everyone here is computer savvy, does anyone
broadband/telecommute for work one or more times a month?

Yup - every day, even. Here's my small business:
www.aristotletutors.com.

LM

gds wrote:
That is a childish challenge.

My whole point is that this is very complicated and simplistic
solutions are not going to help. . I am not an expert in disaster or
evacuation planning. The reality is that we have spent $billions and
don't have effective plans. We deserve better. The fact that "I" don't
know how to do such a plan isn't the relevant variable.

No, that's the reality of the situation. We have cities with literally
millions of people in them. And these same people expect that we should
be able to evacuate them all to a safe place in a timely manner without
gridlock. If they are told that they must leave, they don't want to do
it until it is absolutely certain that the danger is going to impact
them personally. They don't realize that it will take days for the
evacuation to be complete, but the certainty that disaster will strike
may only be possible with less than 24 hours of notice.

They get mad if you tell them to leave. They get mad if you don't tell
them to leave. If you try to do it in an orderly fashion, they have
excuses for doing it in a disorderly fashion.

We aren't running fire drills here. We don't have a single official (a
teacher) to lead a small group (30 students) out of a burning building.
We have millions of people making their own decisions about when to
leave (despite warnings), choosing their own routes to leave (despite
instructions), not taking precautions for the trip (is the gas tank
full), all on a network of roads not designed to carry that load, and
then getting upset when it all doesn't go as smoothly as they expected.

The infrastructure doesn't exist to evacuate these large areas. Even if
there were adequate public transportation, how many people will still
try to use their own vehicles? Would you leave all of your stuff behind
if you can only carry two bags per person? If the plan was designed to
clear neighborhoods in order of risk - say all of the lowest areas
first - how many people will disrupt that plan and decide to leave the
area out of order? No plan is perfect, and the people that they are
designed to help often just make it worse.

The worst thing that can (and will) happen is the next evacuation of
Houston. Many people will remember what happened with Rita, forget the
death and destruction caused by Katrina and Rita, and decide to take
the risk and stay home. If it hits, then we will suffer the
consequences - again. Let's not forget that the disaster community
(yes, there is a whole world organized around disaster education,
prevention, and research) has been warning New Orleans about the
potential results of a big hurricane impact. It has even made the
popular press (see other links in similar threads).

At least Katrina showed the world what can happen. Houstonians were
scared and ran from Rita. Some of the stupid ones were arrested surfing
the waves rita created (after they were under a mandatory evacuation).
But since it didn't hit Houston and the evacuation wasn't the vacation
trip they thought it would be, I'm sure they will stick around for the
next one to hit. Let's pray they don't.

-Buck

gds wrote:
:: That is a childish challenge.
::
:: My whole point is that this is very complicated and simplistic
:: solutions are not going to help. . I am not an expert in disaster or
:: evacuation planning. The reality is that we have spent $billions and
:: don't have effective plans. We deserve better. The fact that "I"
:: don't know how to do such a plan isn't the relevant variable.

Do we really deserve better? Do we really pay enough to the government to
expect better? What precedent is there on which we can base our
expectations? Should we really expect so much from government?

Roger Zoul wrote:

Do we really deserve better? Do we really pay enough to the government to
expect better? What precedent is there on which we can base our
expectations? Should we really expect so much from government?

Well that goes to the heart of the differences in the social contract
debate. Many argue that protecting the public from foreign armies,
criminals, and natural disasters is the primary purpose of the social
contract (government). Others assign "higher goals" such as social
welfare a high priority.

Without getting too philosophical I simply ask. "If the government is
not capable of "protecting" its citizens- why have a government?"
Asking us - the citizens- if we "deserve" this protection is a bit like
blaming the victim.

As to precedent. That is well established. FEMA exists and is well
funded. Homeland Security exists and is massively funded. Police and
fire departments both wih a public safety mission exist. The National
Guard and other military units with rescue and security expertise
exist. This is all precedent- and well funded precedent.

gds wrote:
: Roger Zoul wrote:
:
: Do we really deserve better? Do we really pay enough to the
: government to expect better? What precedent is there on which we
: can base our expectations? Should we really expect so much from
: government?
:
: Well that goes to the heart of the differences in the social contract
: debate. Many argue that protecting the public from foreign armies,
: criminals, and natural disasters is the primary purpose of the social
: contract (government). Others assign "higher goals" such as social
: welfare a high priority.

I think protecting the public from natural disasters is the weakest part of
this, for there is little precedent there. Armies and law enforcement are
much better understood. Terrorism exposed another weak link, that's likely
still that way.

:
: Without getting too philosophical I simply ask. "If the government is
: not capable of "protecting" its citizens- why have a government?"
: Asking us - the citizens- if we "deserve" this protection is a bit
: like blaming the victim.

Again, that statement makes good sense except against the forces of
nature...there are things out there that mankind is just ill-equipped to
deal with...

:
: As to precedent. That is well established. FEMA exists and is well
: funded. Homeland Security exists and is massively funded. Police and
: fire departments both wih a public safety mission exist. The National
: Guard and other military units with rescue and security expertise
: exist. This is all precedent- and well funded precedent.

Define "well funded" in light of recent events.... define it in terms of
being able to protect a nation from a multitude of major disasters. Define
it during a period of time where more and more cat 5 huricanes cross the
atlantic.

I don't consider those precedents of the sort I concerned about. I'm
looking for previous examples of major disasters of the sort that major
movements of people are needed to prevent suffering and loss of life. The
kind needed for Katrina. A tsunami. The big one.

gds wrote:
Roger Zoul wrote:

Do we really deserve better? Do we really pay enough to the government to
expect better? What precedent is there on which we can base our
expectations? Should we really expect so much from government?


Well that goes to the heart of the differences in the social contract
debate. Many argue that protecting the public from foreign armies,
criminals, and natural disasters is the primary purpose of the social
contract (government). Others assign "higher goals" such as social
welfare a high priority.

Without getting too philosophical I simply ask. "If the government is
not capable of "protecting" its citizens- why have a government?"
Asking us - the citizens- if we "deserve" this protection is a bit like
blaming the victim.

As to precedent. That is well established. FEMA exists and is well
funded. Homeland Security exists and is massively funded. Police and
fire departments both wih a public safety mission exist. The National
Guard and other military units with rescue and security expertise
exist. This is all precedent- and well funded precedent.

One might well ask how much protection you expect from your government.
It is not reasonable, for instance, for government to provide
instantaneous 24/7 personal protection for every citizen. Typically, if
a police department can respond to an emergency call within 5 to 10
minutes, it's doing well. Of course, an assailant can harm (or kill) a
victim in less than 1 minute.

Government defines and enforces the social contract. In most western
democracies, it does so reasonably well (typical griping to the
contrary). Government can, and usually does, provide emergency planning
and response. In general, in democracies, we tend not to respond well
to being told that we must evacuate (etc). When such an order comes
out, you generally see a lot of people disobeying the order, either by
not evacuating or by doing so on their own terms. That is not to
suggest that the plans are perfect (or even adequate). But if the
people involved disregard the plan, the plan tends not to work well.

Assuming that some bureaucrat somewhere is going to be able to take care
of you during an emergency, especially if he and his family are being
affected by the same emergency, is probably being unrealistic. Plan to
take care of yourself. I'm not suggesting being an ultraparanoid
survivalist type, but at least do the reasonable things that you can do.

Jeff

"gds" wrote:

Roger Zoul wrote:

Do we really deserve better? Do we really pay enough to the government to
expect better? What precedent is there on which we can base our
expectations? Should we really expect so much from government?

Well that goes to the heart of the differences in the social contract
debate. Many argue that protecting the public from foreign armies,
criminals, and natural disasters is the primary purpose of the social
contract (government). Others assign "higher goals" such as social
welfare a high priority.

Without getting too philosophical I simply ask. "If the government is
not capable of "protecting" its citizens- why have a government?"
Asking us - the citizens- if we "deserve" this protection is a bit like
blaming the victim.

Still, unless the government can revoke the laws of physics, we end up
with the same problem - too many people to get out of town in a short
period of time. My guess is that if someone were to push this and
insist that the government makes sure we don't let ourselves get
killed by the next "big one", the only sensible solution would be to
limit how many people could live in Houston.

As to precedent. That is well established. FEMA exists and is well
funded. Homeland Security exists and is massively funded. Police and
fire departments both wih a public safety mission exist. The National
Guard and other military units with rescue and security expertise
exist. This is all precedent- and well funded precedent.

The national government tends to be reasonably good at doing things on
a national scale. If you cede all the local stuff to them, get ready
to see the lack of local knowledge create bigger problems than you're
trying to solve.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Roger Zoul wrote:
gds wrote:
: Roger Zoul wrote:
:
: Do we really deserve better? Do we really pay enough to the
: government to expect better? What precedent is there on which we
: can base our expectations? Should we really expect so much from
: government?
:
: Well that goes to the heart of the differences in the social contract
: debate. Many argue that protecting the public from foreign armies,
: criminals, and natural disasters is the primary purpose of the social
: contract (government). Others assign "higher goals" such as social
: welfare a high priority.

I think protecting the public from natural disasters is the weakest part of
this, for there is little precedent there. Armies and law enforcement are
much better understood. Terrorism exposed another weak link, that's likely
still that way.

:
: Without getting too philosophical I simply ask. "If the government is
: not capable of "protecting" its citizens- why have a government?"
: Asking us - the citizens- if we "deserve" this protection is a bit
: like blaming the victim.

Again, that statement makes good sense except against the forces of
nature...there are things out there that mankind is just ill-equipped to
deal with...

:
: As to precedent. That is well established. FEMA exists and is well
: funded. Homeland Security exists and is massively funded. Police and
: fire departments both wih a public safety mission exist. The National
: Guard and other military units with rescue and security expertise
: exist. This is all precedent- and well funded precedent.

Define "well funded" in light of recent events.... define it in terms of
being able to protect a nation from a multitude of major disasters. Define
it during a period of time where more and more cat 5 huricanes cross the
atlantic.

I don't consider those precedents of the sort I concerned about. I'm
looking for previous examples of major disasters of the sort that major
movements of people are needed to prevent suffering and loss of life. The
kind needed for Katrina. A tsunami. The big one.


What isn't mentioned here (so far) is that the Mississippi river lies on
a fault zone that could have a really major earthquake. There was one in
1811 that was probably about 8.0 but there were no white men with big
buildings to fall over. This was about 500 miles north of New Orleans
but did divert the mighty Mississippi river and create some new lakes.
The government simply can't protect us from nature, but it may be able
to warn us to get the hell out of the way, like should have happened
with the Tsunami and Katrina. Katrina is causing major suffering but not
that much loss of life in the grand scale. Somewhere between 3,000 and
5,000 people die every day, mostly of old age, some from car wrecks and
drugs, guns, etc., so take it all in perspective. What Katrina really
did was to wreck a lot of people's life styles, many permanently. And if
a tsunami does come toward Texas or some southern shore what will Bush
do about it? Nothing! All he could possibly do is warn people to get as
far from the water as possible, if he was warned by the USGS, and if he
wasn't too busy reading to second graders.
Bill

"Bill" wrote in message
...
All he could possibly do is warn people to get as far from the water as
possible, if he was warned by the USGS, and if he wasn't too busy reading
to second graders.

At least the second graders weren't wearing kneepads...

Roger Houston wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
...

All he could possibly do is warn people to get as far from the water as
possible, if he was warned by the USGS, and if he wasn't too busy reading
to second graders.


At least the second graders weren't wearing kneepads...


Touche.
At least Bush was doing something he 'might' be qualified for.
Bill