Earthquake Thread: 12-30-06 San Andreas ready to pop big time

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Balt
That's great that you are prepared, but the poor and elderly may not have as much capability as you do to survive and last through a natural disaster.
ok, so what if they're not poor, or elderly, and yet they're still not prepared? what's the next excuse? Is there an official list of excuses that we can use as a reference?

link please.

Free tip: move far away from the fault lines or dont cry when your house sinks into the Pacific.

Yeah, let's just have everyone abandon the most economically successful areas of California and Alaska and watch the economic disaster that creates. Brilliant plan, chief. :roll:

While we're at it, let's move everyone at least 200 hundred miles away from any coast that can be hit by a hurricane and clear out those people who live along any river that can flood. Oh yeah, let's not forget those people living in tornado alley.

Get real.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Balt
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Balt
That's great that you are prepared, but the poor and elderly may not have as much capability as you do to survive and last through a natural disaster.
ok, so what if they're not poor, or elderly, and yet they're still not prepared? what's the next excuse? Is there an official list of excuses that we can use as a reference?

link please.

Free tip: move far away from the fault lines or dont cry when your house sinks into the Pacific.

Yeah, let's just have everyone abandon the most economically successful areas of California and Alaska and watch the economic disaster that creates. Brilliant plan, chief. :roll:

While we're at it, let's move everyone at least 200 hundred miles away from any coast that can be hit by a hurricane and clear out those people who live along any river that can flood. Oh yeah, let's not forget those people living in tornado alley.

Get real.
I didn't state or imply that such a move should be forced upon anyone living in vulnerable locales. It's entirely their choice to do so; but said choice goes hand in hand with being prepared for a possible disaster; and not at my expense damnit!!

The argument being made was that the elderly and poor will need assistance. That said, and given your response, how much are those poor and elderly contributing to what you call the "most economically successful areas"? I would guess that they are not making those areas what they are, so don't you think it would be a good idea for them to move to an area that is less vulnerable to natural disasters?

I was sickened by those hit by Katrina who stuck their hands out for my dollars even if they had a car or other means to escape before the storm. Add to that their willingness to rape and pillage, and I lose all sympathy for them.

There were also many victims who had the financial means to plan and prepare for the disaster by purchasing rations and survival equipment well ahead of time. Those who had the means, but still did not prepare, are also total morons who do not deserve our sympathy.

If I absolutely had to live on the San Andreas fault-line or below sea level, I'm intelligent enough to prepare for a natural disaster. I expect the same from any responsible adult. period.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

It wasn?t that the government responded poorly, it more that the overwhelming size of the disaster overwhelmed the governments ability to respond.

Right, having the head of an agency say on a national news program well into the disaster that he was unaware there was a stadium full of refugees wasn't 'responding poorly'.

I think most of the mistakes were made before hand with poor planning. Once the disaster struck we were already trying to play catch up.

Let's be clear, the Bush administration didn't inherit or continue 'poor planning'. As an administration out to feed off the taxpayer trough for its donors, to grab all the money it can, it had slashed FEMA, had taken it out of the cabinet and put it under their pet agency where it could be milked; hundreds of positions, many of the senior ones, left unfilled so that they can use the money that would have gone for salaries for their own desires.

This was not an accident, but a crime. It's why they invest so heavily in the 'opinion determining' right-wing media to make sure not too many Americans see what they did.

And here's ProfJohn again reliably doing just as they want in spreading the word that the government's wrongs were very small, the sort you would be wrong to make an issue of.

you really should join Dave in his run for the Presidency in '08... no, really, it would be hilarious! please?

after you do so, please publish a schedule letting all of us know when and where to see you clowns on your tour of Coffee Shops around the country!

Why do we have so few right-wing posters who aren't just idiots who post nonsense instead of any attempt at rational discussion?

Damn cult members. It's the arrogance that being relatively safe and sound and prosperous in America and far off from the pain caused by policies or among the poor in New Orleans that make it all just some joke to them, you have to presume. More and more, it's not liveral versus right-wing, it's moral and informed against ignorant and evil.

To a later post: Balt answered palehorse well already, but PH's foolish attitude about 'just don't live around Earthquakes' is the usual not thought out stuff that make my sig fit him.

California largely carries the nation economically, I don't have figures but I'll guess a ballpark of 20% of the GDP of the US, especially the SF bay area, most of which is vulnerable to earthquakes. As bad as the earthquakes will be, the cost is far higher to have people move as he suggests. The sensible policy is to plan for the earthquakes, including a lot of government activity, to minimize the problems. It's the only thing that makes any sense, which is why you don't hear it from him.

While I can look at the nearby major fault expected to have a big earthquake before long, I'm aware that my house has a good probability to get through it, I have insurance to rebuild my home (which I spend over $700 a year for), and the tax money we put into disaster preparation is money well invested.

As for palehorse's statement that FEMA was just as bad before Bush as after and that any claim otherwise is 'partisan', it only reflects his ignorance as usual.

Every expert I've seen comment praises the improvements Clinton made to FEMA and the efforts James Lee Witt,

Here's an excerpt from an article in Government Executive magazine:

Once the press conference had concluded, Shelby approached Witt and placed his hand on the director's shoulder. "You're the best," he told Witt. Bachus had more kind words, telling National Journal: "Gov. [George W.] Bush would be well served to appoint James Lee Witt, if he wants to put a Democrat [at FEMA]." According to Witt, these Republican legislators told him that they would personally recommend him to Bush, if Witt wanted to remain at the agency. But Witt's tenure is coming to an end. Last week, Bush appointed Joe Allbaugh, his presidential campaign manager, to lead FEMA. Witt will most likely return to Arkansas, where he might run for governor or for Congress.

Admiration for Witt isn't limited to Alabama. During the first presidential debate last fall, both Bush and Al Gore were eager to one-up each other in their praise for the director. "I've got to pay the Administration a compliment," Bush remarked. "James Lee Witt of FEMA has done a really good job of working with governors during times of crisis." Gore then added: "I accompanied James Lee Witt down to Texas when those fires broke out. And FEMA has been a major flagship project of our reinventing-government efforts." (Of course, after the debate, Gore lost points when it was revealed that he actually traveled with FEMA's deputy director, and not Witt.) FEMA aides joke today that the real winner of the debate wasn't Bush or Gore-it was James Lee Witt.

Indeed, at a time when Washington seems more polarized than ever, most Democrats and Republicans have been able to agree on one thing: that the little-known Witt represents the very best of the Clinton Administration. He has made FEMA much more responsive to the public. He has worked to prevent disasters. He has cut a significant amount of bureaucratic red tape. And he has helped boost the public image of a once-troubled agency that was about to be placed under the governmental guillotine.

"For many years, FEMA had been regarded almost universally as an agency not up to the job," President Clinton said in 1996. "And I'm very proud that under James Lee Witt's management ... FEMA is now a model disaster-relief agency, and, in some corners, thought to be by far the most successful part of the federal government today." ...

After Hurricane Hugo hit the South Carolina coast in 1989, an earthquake shook California in the same year, and Hurricane Andrew damaged Florida in 1992, attacks on the agency reached their apex. Critics argued that FEMA's response to these disasters was too slow. "It is the sorriest bunch of bureaucratic jackasses I have ever encountered in my life," Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, D-S.C., complained on the Senate floor in the aftermath of Hugo.

Some members of Congress, including Rep. Fortney H. "Pete" Stark, D-Calif., called for the agency's elimination and placing disaster relief in the hands of the military. "[FEMA's] response was a blizzard of red tape, a hurricane of hot air, but no avalanche of help-more like a glacial mountain of delay," Stark said.

But Witt has turned the agency around. One of FEMA's institutional problems was that it was a product of the Cold War, and many of its resources were devoted to dealing with a possible nuclear attack on the United States. After taking office, Witt worked to redirect those resources to help with disaster relief. Said Zensinger: "The thinking was: `We didn't have the Cold War anymore. Why don't [we] pay more attention to domestic issues?' "

Witt has also made the agency more responsive to the victims of natural disasters. By implementing a toll-free hot line and upgrading the agency's technology, Witt has helped to reduce from an average of 30 days to just five to 10 days the time it takes for victims to apply for and receive federal financial assistance.

In addition, Witt has made disaster mitigation one of his priorities. He created a program called Project Impact, which targets communities where disasters are likely to occur. Under the program, communities form partnerships with both the government and the private sector to enforce stricter building codes and to strengthen existing infrastructure. FEMA has also moved or bought 19,000 homes that are prone to massive flooding. According to Dale Shipley, the executive director of the Ohio Emergency Management Agency, mitigation has been Witt's greatest achievement. "That's his legacy, I think," Shipley said.

So, let's try this again - Witt did do a lot better with FEMA, and the partisanship to deny its decline is the partisanship of Palehorse, again.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I didn't state or imply that such a move should be forced upon anyone living in vulnerable locales. It's entirely their choice to do so; but said choice goes hand in hand with being prepared for a possible disaster; and not at my expense damnit!!

I was sickened by those hit by Katrina who stuck their hands out for my dollars even if they had a car or other means to escape before the storm. Add to that their willingness to rape and pillage, and I lose all sympathy for them.

Your expense? So you bared the brunt of the costs for disaster relief efforts? Victims approached you personally and asked you for money? I never said it was your duty to dole out money to the victims of Katrina. It is, however, the role of a responsible government to run and/or aid relief efforts in the event of a major disaster. If you can name one successful democratic country that tells its citizens "You're on your own" when a disaster strikes, I'd be interested to hear about it. We pay taxes for more than just national defense.

The argument being made was that the elderly and poor will need assistance. That said, and given your response, how much are those poor and elderly contributing to what you call the "most economically successful areas"? I would guess that they are not making those areas what they are, so don't you think it would be a good idea for them to move to an area that is less vulnerable to natural disasters?

There are many people in this country who will be born, live, and die all in the same city. Maybe they don't have a car, maybe they share one with their family, maybe they live from paycheck to paycheck. People live where there are jobs, including the people who mop the floors and clean the toilets. Even the most affluent areas in the country need people who will do the menial jobs that no one else wants to do.

There were also many victims who had the financial means to plan and prepare for the disaster by purchasing rations and survival equipment well ahead of time. Those who had the means, but still did not prepare, are also total morons who do not deserve our sympathy.

If I absolutely had to live on the San Andreas fault-line or below sea level, I'm intelligent enough to prepare for a natural disaster. I expect the same from any responsible adult. period.

Yes, if people have the means to get out of the way and/or prepare for a natural disaster, then they would be absolutely foolish not to. That wasn't the argument.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The good news about major quakes in a given area is that they do not occur very often.

The bad news about major quakes in a given area is that the longer they are delayed---the higher the
magnitude is---and more damage is done. As I recall the 1906 San Fransisco quake caused a horizontal
displacement or some 20 feet.

But many that think they are safe in the heartland of the USA need to remember the the greatest quake(s) in the history of the 48 States occurred
near St. Louis and involves the New Madrid fault that snakes its way through many States. And because its a deep fault--its effects spread farther.

But even if a quake never gets a given person--they will see in in their pocketbooks as insurance rates rise.

And if FEMA does not get dramatically better when and if the US is hit with a major quake----there will be a major scandal over it.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
OMG! It's a Bush Administration Conspiracy!!! Bush must be using his earthquake generator machine to cause all of those mini-quakes...trying to make us complacant. He wants us to think that earthquakes are normal so that we don't react to them anymore. Then, when we aren't expecting it, he will tell his magic elves to unleash the big one.

WE'RE ON TO YOU BUSH!!!!
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Why do we have so few right-wing posters who aren't just idiots who post nonsense instead of any attempt at rational discussion?
Because they either get mercilessly attacked for every post they make.

Or they get banned for something, like asking why their seemingly acceptable threads are locked, but the crazy threads of people like Techs and Dave are left alone. Remember when I was new and every other post was ?Who were you before you were banned? I guess people see a conservative and automatically assume he was once banned.

Let me add this: When are we going to have some rational people to discus things with?
?This was not an accident, but a crime.?
So poor planning and response to an overwhelming disaster is a now a crime?
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Craig234
Why do we have so few right-wing posters who aren't just idiots who post nonsense instead of any attempt at rational discussion?
Because they either get mercilessly attacked for every post they make.

Or they get banned for something, like asking why their seemingly acceptable threads are locked, but the crazy threads of people like Techs and Dave are left alone. Remember when I was new and every other post was ?Who were you before you were banned? I guess people see a conservative and automatically assume he was once banned.

Let me add this: When are we going to have some rational people to discus things with?
?This was not an accident, but a crime.?
So poor planning and response to an overwhelming disaster is a now a crime?

your lack of reading comprehension is a crime.