Ernest Sternberg wrote: > The answers to all questions, except perhaps the last, will be "No." Nor is > it completely clear that, in view of our many problems, emergency management > should have the highest priority. After all, we don't know how likely this > scenario is. > > If the terrible event does occur, all the future critics, all biased by > hindsight -- who are as of now in no rush to spend money on disaster > prevention -- will howl for blood. Such a rush to blame has the destructive > effect of turning responsible officials into defensive bureaucrats. > > There is, after all, no such thing as a good disaster. Those on the front > lines of decision-making become the most obvious scapegoats. While others > rush to pin blame for the Katrina tragedy, let us be sure we've got our own > house in order. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Ernest Sternberg does research on disaster planning at the University at > Buffalo's Department of Urban and Regional Planning.
In this position, Mr. Sternberg should know that prevention is much cheaper than the cure (as with drug addictions, btw). The mistake re. Katrina was to save on levee maintenance, and this was known and warned about in 2004, so his comments re. "hindsight bias" are inappropriate, as is his comparison to the Buffalo ice-storm scenario, where it all wouldn't merely depend on levees. Anyway, the basic problem is that the neo-cons deem it okay that the poor will get hit hardest, and the Israeli "private army" mercenaries and Halliburton contract vultures make a business out of disaster, like in Iraq. This gives a new meaning to the term "disaster planning"... Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
