Ike and Crying Wolf

[Charles Woodson]

First of all, Florida usually doesnt get hurricanes, we just get hype. Andrew was the last really bad one in 92, charlie, a few years back did some damage to tampa.

Um, what? We've had 5 major hurricanes since 2004, two of those (Wilma and Charlie) being in the top 5 costliest all-time. Charlie was in my area and it destroyed Port Charlotte. Charlie was supposed to hit Tampa, but it wobbled and hit around Port Charlotte causing a lot of damage, not to mention the damage it did on Captiva Island and Punta Gorda. Did a fair share of damage in Fort Myers and Naples, too.

Wilma did a good amount of damage in Marco and Naples, but then the East Coast saw the effects with a helluva lot of rain and then the gigantic screw-up with getting utilities up and running again.

We do get hit by the most hurricanes, that's an undeniable fact. Now, a lot of them get way overhyped. Fay was supposed to strengthen, but it could never get organized once it got over Cuba, the same thing happened to Ernesto. The good thing, though, is that we're use to dealing with hurricanes and our governors have been great dealing with crisis. Both Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist (both Republicans) have handled the events of Charley and Wilma, respectively, as well as possible. Governors in the past *cough* Blanco *cough* and future could learn from how Florida has handled these things.

Let me edit my post and say Miami, thats what i was basing it on since thats where i live

[BallHawk]

Yeah, Miami's gotten off OK since Andrew. You guys are due, though....

[texaspackerbacker]

Some well thought out answers to a tough and relatively non-partisan question.

I've never lived in Florida, and I'm way too far from the Gulf for any effects of hurricanes in Texas. I do, however. have a married daughter who moved to the Tampa area early this year, and had the first threat of a hurricane experience with Fay. One big difference with Florida that maybe Charles was alluding to is that you don't have people living below sea level, which is the case with huge numbers in New Orleans.

Usually, I don't ask a controversial question that I don't have a ready answer for. This one, though, I just don't know. My gut says, hell no, government better not try to tell me what to do--and I can empathize with anybody having that view. On the other hand, if the alternative is large numbers killed, as well as a surreal situation of lawlessness and depravity, as existed in New Orleans during Katrina and was avoided this time around, maybe a bit of nanny-state intrusion is in order. On the third hand, today, residents trying to get back to their homes were met by armed National Guardsmen forcing them to stay out of the city until Thuirsday. Leave it to government to screw up even a successful bit of disaster mitigation.

[MJZiggy]

I think in this case, a bit of government intrusion is almost necessary as otherwise people will not be smart enough to leave on their own (or will clog up the roads running for the hills with no kind of order to it) and then they'll blame the government for not calling an evacuation. And you're right, lawlessness will prevail in those situations.

As to the National Guardsmen, well that's just stupid. The storm has passed. Let 'em go home. This won't help their case next time.

The other thing about Tampa, is that the hurricane has to swing at just the right curve to hit Tampa and it usually doesn't happen too often. When it does, the wind does most of the damage instead of the flood.

[BallHawk]

Tampa's got its fair share of buildings that are not built up to code. If a major hurricane hits there it could get pretty nasty.

[HowardRoark]

I think in this case, a bit of government intrusion is almost necessary as otherwise people will not be smart enough to leave on their own.

Sounds like a vicious circle. Circling the drain.

[MJZiggy]

While you're right about Tampa and the codes, the hurricane does have to make it through either St. Pete or Clearwater first, so it slows down just a bit before it gets there. Hell, we even once went through a tropical storm with part of our roof missing and didn't know until a month or two later. Stupid contractors...

[HowardRoark]

My gut says, hell no, government better not try to tell me what to do--and I can empathize with anybody having that view. On the other hand, if the alternative is large numbers killed, as well as a surreal situation of lawlessness and depravity, as existed in New Orleans during Katrina and was avoided this time around, maybe a bit of nanny-state intrusion is in order. On the third hand, today, residents trying to get back to their homes were met by armed National Guardsmen forcing them to stay out of the city until Thuirsday. Leave it to government to screw up even a successful bit of disaster mitigation.

It's OK in this circumstance for the State to tell me what I can and can't do, is that what you are saying? When is it OK and when not? What about trans fats, large numbers will be killed if too much is consumed. I guess that's OK too. What's next? Maybe they should just ship out big brown boxes to our homes with what to eat.

"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog." G.K. Chesterton

[mraynrand]

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once - Hume

[mraynrand]

I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it. - Tocqueville (I think he wrote this after eating one of those Girl Scout peanut butter cookies with the trans fats eliminated - Bleeeeechh!)

[texaspackerbacker]

My gut says, hell no, government better not try to tell me what to do--and I can empathize with anybody having that view. On the other hand, if the alternative is large numbers killed, as well as a surreal situation of lawlessness and depravity, as existed in New Orleans during Katrina and was avoided this time around, maybe a bit of nanny-state intrusion is in order. On the third hand, today, residents trying to get back to their homes were met by armed National Guardsmen forcing them to stay out of the city until Thuirsday. Leave it to government to screw up even a successful bit of disaster mitigation.

It's OK in this circumstance for the State to tell me what I can and can't do, is that what you are saying? When is it OK and when not? What about trans fats, large numbers will be killed if too much is consumed. I guess that's OK too. What's next? Maybe they should just ship out big brown boxes to our homes with what to eat.

"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog." G.K. Chesterton

I'm the one wimping out on this issue, Howard. I honestly don't know where to draw the line when it is 1. an issue of large scale death and 2. an issue of runaway lawlessness like we saw after Katrina. The logical extension of Libertarian thought is anarchy and social Darwinism. THAT has to be prevented, even if it means compromising just a bit of freedom.

The distinction between this issue and things like trans fats, global warming, etc. is that these are trumped up PHONY issues put forth by the liberals to empower government, take away freedom, hurt our economy, and weaken America in general.

[hoosier]

The distinction between this issue and things like trans fats, global warming, etc. is that these are trumped up PHONY issues put forth by the liberals to empower government, take away freedom, hurt our economy, and weaken America in general.

Just like flouridation back in the 60s?

[HowardRoark]

The distinction between this issue and things like trans fats, global warming, etc. is that these are trumped up PHONY issues put forth by the liberals to empower government, take away freedom, hurt our economy, and weaken America in general.

Who defines what a “trumped up PHONY issue” is? Your point is the crux of my problem with our country right now. You keep taking care of people, and they get “dumbed down.” Pretty soon they are too dumb to take care of themselves and the Nanny State takes over aspect of our lives.

I have had the same argument with healthcare with you.

a) Will Government take over the whole system?
b) Will we force uninsured people to get insurance in the private sector?
c) Will we let the uninsured die in the streets because they were too dumb to take care of themselves?

[Charles Woodson]

Yeah, Miami's gotten off OK since Andrew. You guys are due, though....

Asshole

[texaspackerbacker]

The distinction between this issue and things like trans fats, global warming, etc. is that these are trumped up PHONY issues put forth by the liberals to empower government, take away freedom, hurt our economy, and weaken America in general.

Who defines what a “trumped up PHONY issue” is? Your point is the crux of my problem with our country right now. You keep taking care of people, and they get “dumbed down.” Pretty soon they are too dumb to take care of themselves and the Nanny State takes over aspect of our lives.

I have had the same argument with healthcare with you.

a) Will Government take over the whole system?
b) Will we force uninsured people to get insurance in the private sector?
c) Will we let the uninsured die in the streets because they were too dumb to take care of themselves?

I will be the one, of course, to define what a “trumped up PHONY issue” is. Who could possibly be better qualified. Seriously, the Katrina horrors are well documented. A clearly similar disaster is a matter of life and death for huge numbers of people. Also, any innocents in the zone of destruction were and would be subjected to the evils of anarchy--rule by outlaw forces. Now when that situation is an imminent threat and when it is not, that is another question. If it IS that degree of disaster, though, then there is no comparison with silly little shit like fats, global warming, health care, and pretty much anything else you can name, which even if valid--and the huge majority of those issues are NOT valid--are in no way IMMINENT threats.

I don't recall much of the health care discussion. Were you, per chance, one of those advocating mandatory health insurance for Americans? If so, that would seem WAY OUT OF CHARACTER with your generally Libertarian--government butt out approach. For the record, I would answer no, no, and no to your a, b, and c. Could you possibly answer those questions any differently?