The difference between local response and local response

Posted by Moonage on 21 Sep 2005 | Tagged as: Katrina

I bet FEMA doesn’t come under fire in Houston.  This is why.

Technorati Tags:

Tags:

4 Comments »

4 Responses to “The difference between local response and local response”

  1. on 22 Sep 2005 at 10:09 am 1.Bryan Kerwick said …

    A picture is worth 1,000 words.

    I still wonder if those jackasses in NO plan to prosecute that fine young man that took the ONLY school bus that made it out of NO?

    When the Congressional investigation is all said and done, the final result should be this picture, nuff said!

  2. on 23 Sep 2005 at 2:18 pm 2.StormWarning said …

    Don’t you both think that the response and reaction to Rita in Texas was strongly influenced by what everyone saw in New Orleans? The massive, total evacuation of Houston and Glaveston is visually striking in comparison to the flooded out buses in New Orleans.

    But I wonder if all of the mobilization, including the federal gov’ts pre-positioned assets and FEMA being set-up in advance of landfall would have happened (to this extent, at least) if it hadn’t been for the Katrina mess.

    Frankly, I don’t think Rick Perry or any of the mayors along the Gulf Coast of Texas are stupid. They saw what happened.

    I don’t think that the President is stupid either. That’s why he’s out front and visible this time.

    In spite of Paulison’s history as “Duct Tape Man” he’s not stupid either. As Brown’s replacement, he couldn’t have asked for a better moment for validation than for Rita to follow Katrina so closely, and in the same region.

  3. on 27 Sep 2005 at 5:49 pm 3.Jason Smith said …

    “But I wonder if all of the mobilization, including the federal gov’ts pre-positioned assets and FEMA being set-up in advance of landfall would have happened (to this extent, at least) if it hadn’t been for the Katrina mess.”

    All of the assets were pre-positioned before Katrina as well.

    I keep hearing people say that Texas benefitted from the lessons of Louisiana. But to support that theory, one would have to admit that a full-scale evacuation could be planned, prepared and executed in just 3 weeks… which of course, would beg the question, why didn’t New Orleans do it?

  4. on 27 Sep 2005 at 7:00 pm 4.Moonage said …

    Good points Jason. And, honestly, points that have been mentioned only in passing by most media. FEMA could not have substantially changed in three weeks. If anything, they should have been in lesser of a position to do anything because of the drain on their resources from Katrina. Given the very brief timeframe between Katrina and Rita, something very tangibly different must have already been in place before Katrina.

    That something, IMO, is the mayor and governor.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

  • Quick response of James Witt?

  • Joe Lieberman on FEMA

  • Political Payback?

  • THe first Katrina aftermath Polls

  • Being a Leader

  • Class Action Lawsuit Legislation

  • Gideon’s Bible

  • Look unto the bookshelf, Paul is dead

  • Not in my name

  • The Rise and Fall of governor ratings

  • The Jenna pic scandal!

  • It’s the economy, stupid

  • The Ten Commandments Case

  • Spinning Iraq - Delaying War, Pt 2

  • Harriet Ellan Miers

  • Katrina Timeline

  • The end of political 527’s?

  • Newsweek FUBAR, Continued, Even More

  • Modern Politics

  • Bilbray wins Cunningham’s seat ( all politics IS local )

    • « Rita’s affect on petroleum

    Levees Fail Again in New Orleans »