Objective Points of View - Comparisons to past Hurricanes

[Tom In VA]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05254/568876.stm

"The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne."

And several other technical folks have echoed this.

So it would seem that people with experience in these matters don't view the response as that much a of a clusterfuck whereas people who don't know anything about these matters do.


SOP and Politics as usual, I suppose.

[BSmack]

So it would seem that people with experience in these matters don't view the response as that much a of a clusterfuck whereas people who don't know anything about these matters do.

Then I would submitt that those with "experience" need to get their heads out of their asses and figure out a better system.

[Tom In VA]

So it would seem that people with experience in these matters don't view the response as that much a of a clusterfuck whereas people who don't know anything about these matters do.

Then I would submitt that those with "experience" need to get their heads out of their asses and figure out a better system.

I don't think that submittal is unreasonable. Every craft, skillset, etc... etc... consists of people trying to perform tasks better and more efficiently.

And to be honest, sometimes it takes an objective "non-experienced" perspective to help them do so.

But the point of the article is that compared to other hurricanes, the federal response WAS BETTER.

Can they do better than that ? I'm sure they can. Expectations and perspective can be brought forth by those on the outside, but the real work, and the feasibility of those expectations, will need to be explored by those with practical, real life experience.

Many people died, lives were shattered FOREVER. Insurance companies are beginning to balk and "homeowners" insurace won't cover many of losses. Even extra "storm insurance" won't cover the losses.

This is by no means an attempt to trivialize the magnitude of the damaged lives involved. Nor is it a "celebration". It's just an object look at the facts and data from experienced individuals.

This will help us all understand the response better.

[Mister Bushice]

But the point of the article is that compared to other hurricanes, the federal response WAS BETTER.

I haven't read the article yet, but did it happen to mention who was president for each of those compared disasters?

[Tom In VA]

Hugo - September 1989
Andrew - August 1992
Frances - September 2004 (didn't find a "Francine")
Jeanne - September 2004


And found no "Iniki".

[Mister Bushice]

Couple of comments, Tom,

Jason van Steenwyk, a Florida Army National Guardsman is the guy who said "The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne."

Op ed at best.

#2. 23 people died from Andrew. it occurred 3 years after FEMA fucked up Hugo, causing this comment:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was slow in responding and Senator Fritz Hollings referred to them as "a bunch of bureacratic jackasses." An investigation was launched, which led to some reforms in FEMA procedures that helped the agency do a somewhat better job during Andrew, the next catastrophic hurricane to strike the United States.

Also, south Florida was evacuated, There weren't several thousand idiots hiding in their homes.

Finally, all of those were hurricanes without resultant levee breaks. There was not as significant a reason to send troops in for the others as there was for Katrina because of that.