Comparing Natural Disasters

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 24 2007, 06:52 AM) [snapback]529658[/snapback]</div>

California does have good disaster planning. And most of the humanitarian response was not by any branch of government ... the Red Cross ran the shelters and the only thing they needed government to do was unlock the Qualcomm Stadium so they could get in to it. Government does certain things better, like mobilizing fire agencies, but providing shelters and feeding people is done better by the private sector.

The other thing to consider is that while a fire causes massive devastation, it doesn't make the entire infrastructure collapse. You can drive 5 miles from the fire, fill up with gas, pick up some groceries and continue on your way. In NO, they had the unseemly behavior of the authorities who didn't use the planning money for planning, first responders who left with the mandatory evacuation (as they should have), and then very few left to try and keep order. Even after the storm had left, the first responders couldn't get in, and there was no plan from the state or local level to deal with these emergencies. So the authorities decided to spend their meager resources on going door to door to round up the legally owned firearms of citizens, while the police themselves were still hunkered down at night with posted armed guards because they were afraid of the looters too.

Realizing they had laid an egg, the locals did what all politicians do ... point the finger at someone else. For some reason, people think the Federal government should be involved in local disasters, as if someone in Washington DC is better equipped to handle our drowning neighbors than we are.

The governor in LA has been replaced ... with a Republican. Presumably the Louisianians have taken notice of the job Haley Barbour has done in neighboring Mississippi ... as badly damaged, but rebuilding while NO continues to point fingers and whine about the lack of federal funds.