Hurricane Katrina!!!!!!

[j-turbo2002]

Does anybody know where this gabage statement came from?

See below.

Do the Math

From: Republicans Table

One of the Republicans' main Katrina talking points is that the local N.O. gov't was primarily at fault for unnecessary deaths as they did not evacuate everyone. They often intone this while showing dozens of flooded Orleans Parish school buses that they believe stand as a silent indictment of Mayor Ray Nagin.

Sep 09, 2005 -- 03:51:04 AM EST

Last night, while flipping channels, I stopped on Fox 'News' and watched as Newt Gingrich was interviewed on Hannity and Colmes. Gingrich did his part and opined that the Mayor Ray Nagin and the city government of N.O. had been negligent in not evacuating everyone since Nagin knew 'days in advance' that the hurricane was coming. 'Days in advance?' You wonder if Newt's ever dealt personally with the reality of preparing for a hurricane.

You always know 'days in advance' that a hurricane's coming -- you just don't know where it's going to land. New Orleans was at the center of the projected landfall area early on -- but nearly every Gulf hurricane aims at New Orleans initially -- it was only Saturday that it began to look seriously like landfall at N.O. On Sunday, Katrina was beefed up and it looked even more ominous for N.O. As we all know, the 'mandatory' evacuation was called late Sunday morning.

So it's clear that Nagin did not have 'days' to evacuate. In fact, Katrina was not even strong enough to seriously consider evacuation until Saturday. She came ashore some 48 hours later. But why not evacuate everybody anyway? There was never a plan to evacuate the sick and infirm -- 'special needs' people is what they called them in the emergency preparedness meetings I attended -- and there was never, NEVER a plan to evacuate them before a storm. They were to be 'sheltered in place' and then evacuated after the storm passed. (I know this as I was one of the 'lucky' few who would remain behind with them.) For many of these people, the act of evacuation alone can be life threatening and many needed to be evacuated to health care facilities. Most health care facilities simply cannot take a major influx of patients without substantial preparation.

But leave the sick aside -- what about all the able-bodied poor? Why not get them out? Well, we're not talking about a handful of people. In N.O., this group numbered at least 100,000 souls. They, too, needed somewhere to go -- just getting out of the city could have been deadly since no hurricane just stops once it comes ashore.

Katrina was no different. She plowed inland and remained a Category 2 hurricane all the way to Hattiesburg, MS -- 111 miles from N.O. It was still at or near Cat 1 when it hit Meridian, MS, nearly 200(!) miles from New Orleans. Katrina left devastation in her wake throughout south and central Mississippi and many, even as far north as Jackson, remain, today, without essential services like water and electricity (my sister, who lives in Hattiesburg, only today had power restored.) Evacuating from the city without getting out of the path of the storm would have been as cruel and possibly even more deadly than not evacuating at all.

But, hey, let's imagine that there was a safe place to evacuate 100,000 people with little or no means to support themselves. Just what would it take to accomplish that? Well, a few simple calculations show that, even with all those flooded school buses, it might have been an insurmountable task. If you assume 100,000 people with 24 hours to evacuate (which, in the case of Katrina, was actually less than 20) you would have to average nearly 4200 people evacuated per hour. Large school buses hold about 75 passengers. That means you'd need over 2600 buses -- BIG buses. End to end they would comprise a line of buses 20 miles long! And, of course, 2600 bus drivers -- drivers that were simply not available according to reports I've heard (using inexperienced drivers may have been as dangerous as just staying put -- driving a bus is not like tooling around in your Honda -- it is a skill unto itself.) As a practical matter, say it took 30 minutes to load a bus, you would have to load close to 100 buses simultaneously, continuously, hour after hour to even begin to get out of town and beat the storm.

What about just making round trips with fewer buses? Not really an option since all the interstates out of the city were operating under 'contra-flow' so all lanes, north- and south-bound, were north-bound only. Returning vehicles would have been like spawning salmon swimming against the tide. The resulting traffic snarl would have been horrendous.

The math just doesn't work. There is no practical, real-world way, given the typical time allowed by an approaching storm and the geographic challenges of New Orleans, to evacuate 100,000 people who cannot provide their own means of transportation. The emergency prep guys in the area knew it and it was obvious to anyone familiar with the demographics of Orleans Parish. I sat through many emergency prep meetings in New Orleans and it was the 'elephant in the room' that nobody really talked about. The official response to a Cat 4 or higher storm was to evacuate -- when they'd say that, some of us would just look at each other and shake our heads. We knew -- and they knew -- it just wasn't plausible.

Post-storm evacuation would be the the only way to go for many low income, as well as ill, residents and we knew that we would be depending on outside help for that. If I had been in my old job in Metairie last Monday, I would have been on top of my hospital searching the skies for those rescue choppers. What we didn't know was how long the wait, and how inadequate that outside help, would be. Our disaster planning did not take into consideration one major threat -- the nonchalant incompetence of the Bush Administration.

[Shafted]

No idea where it came from. But sitting on ones butt when a major hurricane is headed your way, is just plain stupid. The entire projected track and uncertainly no doubt meant trouble for NO. If they had been hit by the east side of the storm there would have been no New Orleans left to recover.

[Danielinheels]

As I said before, I don't like the last line, the article would be 20x better without it

It's someone's personal account of what happened, with analysis of the situation, that I read at another forum I frequent

here's the link

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/9/13210/66695

It also turns out that there aren't 2,000 buses in NO either.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509120005

my two cents, again:

I feel that everyone mishandled this somewhere along the way. Local, state, and federal all botched this at some point.

I feel uncomfortable singling out any of these entities as fully to blame.

My reason for that is twofold: One, no one knew what the magnitude of this storm was going to be; two, singling out a group removes accountability (different from responsibility) from the other groups involved.

I don't ask that you fall in love with my opinions and other opinions that I agree with. I do ask that you respect my opinion and my stance, and bear in mind that while you consider my opinion and stance "trash," there are still myriad of displaced people from a region I call home.

[j-turbo2002]

Yes, I assumed that you had taken that statement from some "blog" and it turns out that I was correct. God, I hate "blogs"! I hate them with a passion! I have the same opinion about "blogs" as I do opinion polls: Garbage In = Garbage Out The person who wrote that statement was extremely arrogant. He is arrogant in the sense that he is living in denial and trying to spin the truth. The truth of which is the fact that this region of the gulf has only known for 40 years that this type of hurricane would eventually strike the mainland and yet, nobody was prepared for it. When I read that statement I get the impression that the word of a Category 5 hurricane was breaking news to these people. The author is defending the actions of the state as if they had just found out about the hurricane and acted according so on such a short notice, of which, in my opinion, is just insane. If I had written something like that I would be ashamed to show my face in public. I would bury my head like an ostrich.

[j-turbo2002]

Well, I wrote a long response here, but when I hit submit, the site was gone, I was logged off, and the post was lost. GRRRR

Well.........are you going to try again?

[dr1819]

It just makes me wonder if any of the city officials in New Orleans knew that this plan existed.

And

It is amazing, that none of this was done and yet it keeps getting better.

Oh, it was done - just poorly. For example, you mentioned precautionary evacuation orders being given 72 hours out for "gale force winds or greater," but even though they knew Katrina had a significant chance of striking New Orleans (it made landfall very close to where it was predicted) for three days out, and that conditions were ripe for it strengthening into a CAT 4 storm, they waited until less than 48 hours out before giving the evacuation order.

And you're right about the school buses. In times of emergency, officials have "broad powers" for taking action to protect its citizens, and that inludes the requisition of private property. The school buses, being public property, should have been used.

Bear in mind, however, that there may have been problems with the drivers evacuating with their families!

My question is "how often was the evacuation plan practiced, or even briefed?" Practice requires money, and New Orleans isn't exactly the richest city...

It also requires a certain sense of urgency, but New Orleans isn't called "The Big Easy" for no reason! Life is very laid back, there.

[j-turbo2002]

Bear in mind, however, that there may have been problems with the drivers evacuating with their families!

Practice requires money, and New Orleans isn't exactly the richest city...

So what? All of this should have been planned and prepared for. There is really no excuse. I live in a small town on the Texas Gulf Coast. This town does not have a lot of money and yet, the city runs hurricane evacuation drills. So, my point here is that if my small town of around 30,000 people can practice hurricane evacuation drills so can New Orleans. To my knowledge, New Orleans was never that poor.

[Bubba136]

Kneehighs. I can easily demonstrate the validity of my post. All you have to do is take a good look at New York City. They practice every element contained in my post. And, they'll never "lick" poverty because they practice "touchy, feely-good solutions to problems instead of applying tough, intelligent solutions that eliminate or correct the problems. And, if you can't understand that, you're a big part of the problem.

[BobHH]

A brief recap of what I tried to post: First: Mass evacuations are very difficult. For those with cars, the roads out jam up quickly, and flow is very slow. Unless some agency provides mass transport, those without cars are stuck, and doomed in the case of severe flood or damage. With the tens of thousands in NO without their own transportation, it is almost impossible to get them out in a short period of time, and who provides and pays for the transport? And, you have to feed and house them somewhere else. Very tough. Second: The military (meaning the government, including the National Guard) has the only mass transport and rescue capability around. But they only respond if ordered to, so someone has to make that decision and act. Other fire departments, rescue personnel, etc. responded from around the country, but the logistics of providing rapid, large scale action require a large, equipped organization.

[j-turbo2002]

Sorry to butt-in by I just have to ask a question.

Without any source, I just see these words (not you, but the words) as mere Image Campaigning. A mini version of a favorite tool used by the Republican Party to demonize their opponents. Republicans know they would rarely win if election results were determined by a logical discussion of the issues alone. So they Image Campaign, which I view the above quote as a mini version of. Negative campaigning works too, for when Swing Voters lack an understanding of the details sufficient to make an informed decision, they end up relying on their impressions of the candidates.

What source do you have to substantiate your statements shown above?

[Bubba136]

kneehighs wrote:

Republicans know they would rarely win if election results were determined by a logical discussion of the issues alone.

Now, that's really a stretch. If that was the case, I guess it would be due to all of the intelligent discourse from all those radical wacko fringe democrat groups that are convincing "sane" people not to vote for Republican candidates. That's why Republican's don't win. Now I understand.

[j-turbo2002]

j-turbo2002...basic selling strategy really. First, the heart is won with emotions. Second, the mind justifies the emotions with reason. So as not to digress, I pm'd you the link.

I am not believing this. You have got to be kidding me. Are you for real?

Opinion without substance is probably a good description to sum up the contents of the link that you sent me.

Let me rephrase my question:

What CREDIBLE source do you have to substantiate your statements shown above?

[j-turbo2002]

Here is another perfect example of emotional opinion without any credible substance:

Without any source, I just see these words (not you, but the words) as mere Image Campaigning. A mini version of a favorite tool used by the Republican Party to demonize their opponents. Republicans know they would rarely win if election results were determined by a logical discussion of the issues alone. So they Image Campaign, which I view the above quote as a mini version of. Negative campaigning works too, for when Swing Voters lack an understanding of the details sufficient to make an informed decision, they end up relying on their impressions of the candidates.

[j-turbo2002]

I'm for real. Are you for real? I said in my pm to you, "(I) don't want to argue the merits, fallacies, or strengths of the point. In fact, I barely have time to post at hhplace to begin with which explains why after 3 years of membership I have only 302 posts."

I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about Bubba substantiating his opinions. I'm not talking about your views vs. my views vs. anyones views...I'm talking about Bubba substantiaing his opinions for once.

I know what you said in your email to me. It smelled like a dead fish in a brown paper bag that had been left out in the sun all day long.

I realize that you think that this is about Bubba substantiating his opinions but actually, we are talking about politics here. You made this political and you are not going to weasel your way out of it. If we are not talking about politics here then I do not know what we are talking about.

Now, I am asking for you to credibly substantiain your opinions shown below. Something of which, you cannot do for some reason or another.

Without any source, I just see these words (not you, but the words) as mere Image Campaigning. A mini version of a favorite tool used by the Republican Party to demonize their opponents. Republicans know they would rarely win if election results were determined by a logical discussion of the issues alone. So they Image Campaign, which I view the above quote as a mini version of. Negative campaigning works too, for when Swing Voters lack an understanding of the details sufficient to make an informed decision, they end up relying on their impressions of the candidates.

[j-turbo2002]

You weaseled your way into this when you were never a part of it to begin with.

I realize this however, I asked you a question that you are having a hard time answering. Why is this?

One more issue:

I do not understand you. You made this policital and now you are filling up my PM inbox with emails saying that you don't want to argue polotics. Really? What the hell is the matter with you?

[j-turbo2002]

Where can I find the credible information that leads me to this bogus claim:

Without any source, I just see these words (not you, but the words) as mere Image Campaigning. A mini version of a favorite tool used by the Republican Party to demonize their opponents. Republicans know they would rarely win if election results were determined by a logical discussion of the issues alone. So they Image Campaign, which I view the above quote as a mini version of. Negative campaigning works too, for when Swing Voters lack an understanding of the details sufficient to make an informed decision, they end up relying on their impressions of the candidates.

[j-turbo2002]

What the hell is the matter with you?

What specifically is wrong with the arguments that the site link I sent you made? You haven't even begun to logically dismantle their substance, so now is your chance.

The burden of proof is on you since you are the one who claim it is bogus. Why specifically is it bogus, and once again you can't seem to answer my questions either.

How hard is it to provide at least a link for the above claims?

How hard is it to answer my question?

I tried to logically dismantle their substance however, there was no substance there. You link sent me to a website filled with personal opinion. I read through it but it had no credible substance. There were no credible references or anything. I was looking for a well written dissertation by a policital scientist with a doctoral degree and years of experience. However, sadly, that was not the case. I linked to a personal website filled with personal opinion and "blogs".

Based on the substance of the link that you sent me, I have determined that your credibility just got flushed down the toilet.

Actually, the burden of proof is still on you to prove to me that it is true. I am convinced that you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

You know, you make this political and yet you do not want to argue politics. No, what the hell is the matter with you?

[j-turbo2002]

Well, its not like you have provided a "well written dissertation by a policital scientist with a doctoral degree and years of experience." for the above quotes either. So it would be fair to say that I win that point.

As far as attacking the authors credentials (master degree in econ, college professor), you are making a logically fallacious attack--ad hominem. You are attacking the individual as opposed to his arguments.

Yes, because I never had a dissertation to write! I asked you a question that YOU cannot answer.

I am also not making an ad hominem attack. Do you really know what ad hominem means? From what you have written here, I have determined that you do not know what ad hominem means.

I never attacked that authors credentials. This is something that you have made up. You based your argument on someone elses opinion. You did not base an argument on a dissertation or thesis paper that had been well accepted by the author's colleagues or by experts in the field of political science or psychology (if you want). This is where you got it wrong.

You have NOT won anything. Not yet! Right now you are nothing more than dust in the wind!

So, one more time, where is the answer to my question?

[j-turbo2002]

An ad hominem attack can be implied or direct. By implying that the author lacks the "dissertation or thesis paper that had been well accepted by the author's colleagues or by experts in the field of political science or psychology (if you want)." you are still basing your response on the lack of credentials. Instead of directly countering the authors statements or arguments, you imply that they are not credible due to lack of recognition in the field of political science.

No! You are missing the point! I am not attacking his cridentials! What I am saying is that the article you sent me is just his personal opinion. This is what you are basing your argument upon. It is clear that he is not writing a dissertation here because there are no credible references in the article. What he has written here is something that you would find in an opinion column in a newspaper. I mean, he talks about the emotinal and fear elements with no psychological references or backing. If what the author has written here was a serious dissertation, he would have included the basis for his statements and then published the paper. As of now, I do not think that he has done so and hence, it remains a personal opinion.

Now, where is the answer to my original request for credible information behind your statment?

What is the problem here?

You have not done anything yet.

[hoverfly]

JT, why don't you prove him wrong? I mean your the one who wants credible information. Most of us can make our own judgment with out having to ask for it. I mean it’s all BS going on hear any way, we are not creating a doctrine here. We are here just to BS, well execpt for you.

[j-turbo2002]

I am just not getting through to you am I?

How can you prove to me that the following is true? Has it been accepted be everyone? What? Please tell me.

How does the author know that these statements are true?

You have done absolutely nothing so far.

[j-turbo2002]

JT, why don't you prove him wrong?

I am already doing so - by asking questions.

[j-turbo2002]

At least I gave you some substance (even if we disagree on the quality of the substance) I at least gave you something.

I finally got you to admit it. Yes, all it was was substance and most certainly nothing to base an argument upon.

[dr1819]

Instead of arguing logical discourse and philosophical solipsisms, how about we converge back on the topic - Hurricane Katrina? Just a suggestion, not an opinion, or theory, or proof...

[j-turbo2002]

So you have failed to specifically refute the author’s point of view.

You did not refute any of the definitions or stream of consciousness and you failed to refute the logical fallacy inherent in your request for why I believe what I believe. In fact, until your refutation actually contains a premise with which to argue against, we will just be going in circles.

But so you can refute the basis by which I make my point, I’ll reiterate it. I’ve provided a logical flow as to how the author’s (and in this case. mine also) point of view was established. First, I defined the word proof. Second, I defined the word argument. Third I defined the word credible. I proved the argument credible. In the context of proving how the authors main points were offered within Webster’s definitions I proved the argument (authors claims) were credible. The course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth (argument) compels the mind to accept an assertion as true (proof). The assertions are capable of being believed (credible). Therefore the arguments above fit the criteria for a “credible argument with proof.”

No, you have done nothing whatsoever. YOU are the one driving this in circles because you have not paid any attention to what I have asked of you. I ask one simple question and you have dodged the question and taken your argument 180 degrees in the opposite direction. I am still waiting.

I asked you to prove to me that what the author says is fact and you have not done this so far. You are correct, you did define a lot of words however, this is meaningless. All that you have proven to me is that even though what the author wrote is an opinion, you can make it credible based on logical fallacies.

Based upon your analogy, anything can be credible even though it is false. I mean, based on your anaolgy Bubba could argue his points and give a link to a blog filled with personal opinions like you have done here and therefore, it is credible even though it may be false.

Like I have said all you have proven to me is that by using definitions and logical fallacies, you can make anything credible even though it is false.

One more time, here is my point: You posted a link to a webpage. In this webpage, there is a personal opinion about Republicans made by an author. Now, as of this very moment, that article is false and is nothing more than an opinion until it is found to be socially acceptable by experts in the field subject matter. In other words, the author would have to use references to back up his statements and then publish the article to experts in the field. When all of the experts agree that the author is correct, then what the author has written is credible. This is typically how it is done in the industry. Doctors, Engineers, Historians, and Policital Scientists all follow this process. You were correct before when you asked me if this was hypothesis testing because this is exactly what it is. So far, what the author wrote has not been hypothesis tested and is therefore just an false opinion.

So, the real question here is has the author's point of view been found to be socially acceptable by experts in the field subject matter by hypothesis testing? If the answer to this quesiton is "Yes", then what he has written is credible.

[j-turbo2002]

Instead of arguing logical discourse and philosophical solipsisms, how about we converge back on the topic - Hurricane Katrina?

Just a suggestion, not an opinion, or theory, or proof...

No, that is a very good suggestion!

[hoverfly]

No, that is a very good suggestion!

It's a miracle!!! the carpet bigger got of his high horse!! By him self!!!

:rofl:

[j-turbo2002]

Hoverfly, if I were you I would not get too excited.

[hoverfly]

Hoverfly, if I were you I would not get too excited.

Oh please sweet hart your not my type........ :drinking: Even with my beer goggles on.

Buy the way are you practicing to be a senator congressman ect or are you being just a preacher?

[j-turbo2002]

You just state the authors arguments are false. It's just an opinion. But where is the reasoning that supports your statements? Because it hasn't been hypothesis tested by all the experts in a field, it is therefore false? Because it hasn't been published and the experts have debated every possible permutation of the argument?

YES! In the real world, this is how it is accomplished!

It has absolutely nothing to do with the way you view it.

Here is my reasoning again: You posted a link to a webpage. In this webpage, there is a personal opinion about Republicans made by an author. Now, as of this very moment, that article is false and is nothing more than an opinion until it is found to be socially acceptable by experts in the field subject matter. In other words, the author would have to use references to back up his statements and then publish the article to experts in the field. When all of the experts agree that the author is correct, then what the author has written is credible. This is typically how it is done in the industry. Doctors, Engineers, Historians, and Policital Scientists all follow this process. You were correct before when you asked me if this was hypothesis testing because this is exactly what it is. So far, what the author wrote has not been hypothesis tested and is therefore just an false opinion.

So, the real question here is has the author's point of view been found to be socially acceptable by experts in the field subject matter by hypothesis testing? If the answer to this question is "Yes", then what he has written is credible.

There are no facts or references to support any of this (See below). Where are the facts and references? Where is the support for this conclusion? I want something other than the way that you see it.

1. both sides start to pick apart each other’s facts & interpretations

2. typical Swing Voter quickly becomes confused.

3. Swing Voters realize that they don’t understand the details well enough to make an informed decision

4. they end up relying on their impressions of the candidates

5. Republican strategists see this clearly. (Not exclusive to Republicans. not only applicable to politics, but business, marketing, and sales too)

6. They know they must win the Image Campaign to have any chance of winning. (I never said the same thing didn’t apply to Democrats either. The Democrats must also win the image campaign to have any hope of winning.)

7. It works because Swing Voters are essentially “headline readers” & “sound byte nibblers.” When they see in the headlines that Candidate A accused Candidate B of having a certain personality defect, they tend to believe it….Whenever Democratic candidates are the target of a Republican politician’s expressed anger, it is crucial that they respond properly if they want to win The Image Campaign. Impressions formed during such confrontations are usually remembered on voting day…

8. Swing Voters who have been voting Republican recently have come to see the Republicans as deserving respect partly because of the respect that Democratic politicians have shown them.

9. They define themselves [positively] by defining their Democratic opponents [negatively].

10. And with reference to the 2004 election, “Whenever Bush’s hand-picked crowd applauded his ridicule of Kerry, it created an image of The Democrats in the minds of swing voters that was never effectively answered by the Kerry Campaign (or by the Gore Campaign or by the Dukakis Campaign…). In his own image-bytes, Kerry came across as something of a stern teacher. This was actually not that bad of an idea, but it lacked some important emotional elements that would have established Kerry & The Democrats as the group that is superior to the Republican gang, the one that Swing Voters should want to be associated with.”