The Professor's Notes

“In separate speeches,
John Kerry and
John Edwards said the administration’s inadequate response to the hurricane revealed a failure of competence and values, while the public outpouring of support for storm victims showed Americans wanted more from their government.”

Interesting. Is it any wonder that a Democrat’s response to the failure of a bureaucracy, and the determination of the human spirit, would be to say we want “more government?”

I believe if any lesson should be learned from the “perceived” inability of the bureaucracy to respond, it’s that bureaucracies are not designed for rapid response to unplanned crises. After a number of years, FEMA has become quite adept at responding to “traditional” hurricanes. Note there isn’t much complaining about their response around Mobile, and Gulfport. They have much practice responding here. It’s the Hurricane with FLOODING that has them stymied.

Of course, as I have mentioned here previously, much of the slowness to respond has it’s heart in the challenges of logistics rather than the willingness of the heart. Since then, the slow response of FEMA (as documented personally by my brother, and others) can be attributed to the slow, methodical, paper-pushing nature of bureaucracy. It’s the nature of an accountable government to work to ensure that they remain accountable. In fact, if you check your history books, you will note it’s more often than not the Democrats that have pushed for this sort of accountability. Whenever one requires a “full accounting” of the expenditure of government funds, we not only slow the process down, but increase to overall costs along with the overhead.

So what is Kerry’s response? That somehow, because the American People are able, and willing, to stand up, and stand in the gap, that we desire “more government?” Hmmm… I think he didn’t get it in the election, and I remain convinced he doesn’t get it now.

We don’t want more government. It is no longer “of the people, by the people” and it seems less and less that it is “for the people.” This is not because the individual people in the government aren’t wanting to do more, or are callous. They are hamstrung by the bureaucracy of government.

Freeing people to care for people is the best way to deal with most situations, especially in crises.

I am proud to be an American, who helps Americans.

Use of the Word ‘Refugee’ Stirs Debate – Yahoo! News

I commend this story to all. It is quite interesting to read that we cannot call US Citizens “refugees” because, as the article states, it “somehow implies that the displaced storm victims, many of whom are black, are second-class citizens — or not even Americans.”

Why do i find this interesting? Mostly, because it is the so-called compassionate left that are incensed. Okay, I find it more than interesting. I chuckle at the hypocrisy of the left. The left is the first to clamor about the “refugee crisis” and the need to help the refugees, but don’t want us to call our fellow citizens refugees. In fact, jackson (the reverend, not the erstwhile king of pop) calls it “racist to call American citizens refugees.”

It seems to me that, at a time when the left accuses President Bush of having an elitist, almost imperialist, view of the rest of the world, the left apparently admits that they view the rest of the world as second class citizens, and perhaps even judges them as a racist would.

Yup. The left is elitist. Wait–that’s not a shock to most of us on the right, that have known for years the left’s main goal is to maintain the dependence of the lower classes on their handouts.

Laters….

I have argued, here and elsewhere, that the challenge that faces this great nation is far more complex than the armchair presidents would lead us to believe. The question “why wasn’t anything done sooner” inevitably comes back to the fundamental laws, and requirements, of the physics of movement and storage (Logistics, in other words.) You can only move as far as your ability to support the folks that are working, and can only move forward what the transportation networks can support.

Apparently, the Louisiana Director for Homeland Security went so far as to say the Feds SHOULD have been “force feeding” the people of LA within an hour of the hurricane subsiding. All this says, to me, is that the Colonel served in a capacity other than logistics–and never appreciated what it took to enable him to do his job.

It is challenging, and often means we cannot do as much as we want, as quickly as we would like. And then, human nature kicks in, and we begin to lay blame. Why? Because we cannot accept that some things are beyond man’s ability to control.

I put forward this little poem, The Logistician’s Lament, as a pithy description of the challenges that face logisticians. In this case, I suggest the Colonel in charge of Louisiana Homeland Security is one of the generals.

The Logistician

Logisticians are a sad and embittered race of men who are very much in demand in war, and who sink resentfully into obscurity in peace. They deal only in facts, but must work for men who merchant in theories. They emerge during war because war is very much a fact. They disappear in peace because peace is mostly theory. The people who merchant in theories, and who employ logisticians in war and ignore them in peace, are generals.

Generals are a happily blessed race who radiate confidence and power. They feed only on ambrosia and drink only nectar. In peace, they stride confidently and can invade a world simply by sweeping their hands grandly over a map, pointing their fingers decisively up terrain corridors, and blocking defiles and obstacles with the sides of their hands. In war, they must stride more slowly because each general has a logistician riding on his back and he knows that, at any moment, the logistician may lean forward and whisper: “No, you can’t do that.” Generals fear logisticians in war and in peace, generals try to forget logisticians.

Romping along beside generals are strategists and tacticians. Logisticians despise strategists and tacticians. Strategists and tacticians do not know about logisticians until they grow to become generals–which they usually do.

Sometimes a logistician becomes a general. If he does, he must associate with generals whom he hates; he has a retinue of strategists and tacticians whom he despises; and, on his back, is a logistician whom he fears. This is why logisticians who become generals always have ulcers and cannot eat their ambrosia.

Author Unknown

Unfamiliar Tasks For an Organization Used to Disaster – Yahoo! News

Yesterday, I wrote about the way technology has been used by individuals to create a virtual community of “The Diaspora.” Of course, many will recognize this as a decentralized, or distributed, network. There exists no central clearinghouse for information, except for those pockets of friends that have the ability to develop lists, and then farm them back out to friends and family.

The Washington Post’s story identifies another need–connecting those who are not connected, because they were unable to flee. For many reasons (all of which will be debated and discussed over the months to come) large numbers of people were unable to evacuate the city of New Orleans. They are effectively cut off from communications, even when located in what was called at the time, the refuge “of last resort.” The challenge? Who should be tasked to pull together these groups, collect the information about the survivors, and those that did not, and get the word out? Historically, that has been the role of the American Red Cross–a role fulfilled through the use of paper, pens, and pencils, and lots of sweat equity. Now they are tasked with finding highly technical means of doing this very thing.

The question that is being worked through is actually one tackled by many a business course. “How does one define oneself?” If the Red Cross views themselves as a provider of relief and comfort, but not technological services, then is their organization prepared to handle such a request? Should the Red Cross be in this business, or should they partner with another organization that perhaps would be better suited for these sorts of technical challenges?

And most importantly, should there be only one organization/firm/business to tackle and coordinate the technical challenges?

These are heady times for technology. This isn’t about the “internet bubble” of the late 1990s. It isn’t about technology stocks making people wealthy. We now see technology being used to ameliorate the wounds of our brothers and sisters. Technology with heart.

The Professor

An addendum:

I have rarely spoken here about my research, but now is perhaps a time for me to speak. I have supervised several research efforts looking at the way we provide support to humanitarian relief operations. While much of it has focused on general command and control type issues, perhaps the most interesting one was a paper that tried to develop a centralized checklist for the NGOs to use to coordinate logistics/supply chain support. Imagine, 30 or 40 different organizations, each trying to get their materials and their people into the ravaged areas, hindered by few/no roads, limited airport access (ramp space is precious–especially if you also have to host a “tent city”) and each optimizing their loads for their cargo, not for the overall cargo required to go in to a disaster area. Quite a challenge.

The problem? These organizations either cannot, or will not, work together. And none can or will take direction from the US Government. Wow–imagine trying to corral these cats…

Internet is bulletin board for Katrina victims – Yahoo! News

The horrific stories continue to emanate from Louisiana (mostly new Orleans). Death. Destruction. Murder. Rape. Drownings and dying from dehydration. And on top of all this, we read that rescue efforts have been hampered by the failure of the “high tech” communications networks upon which we have become so reliant. Cell towers are down (either physically down, or inoperable without power.) Land lines have failed. The Washington Post story even talks about how “Victims of Hurricane Katrina struggled to communicate with each other and the rest of the world yesterday.”

This is where I find the most interesting success story of the early 21st century. What many have noted is the largest movement of refugees in the United States since the Civil War has demonstrated the strength of the human condition, and the desire to maintain the strong bonds that have turned housing communities into caring neighborhoods. It is these strong bonds, reinforced by the connectivity of this new age, that has me convinced that communities will rebuild, perhaps more quickly than historically. But it also has me convinced that people will be drawn to return to the communities they physically left, because they never actually “left” the community.

As a few of you know (most don’t, since I struggle to maintain anonymity on here) my brother and his family live in The New Orleans area. He has sought refuge at my house, here in the Mid West. They arrived here on Thursday, after having toughed it out for a few days a little in-land, and then checking on their house. They are well, and they have survived relatively unscathed. But this blog isn’t about them. It’s about their connectivity.

Throughout the journey, we remained in frequent contact with me through cell phone service, and text messages. It turns out that, while cell phone service is not active in the disaster areas, those that have left the area (and are thus “roaming”) are able to make outgoing calls. Alas, they cannot receive calls. Enter “innovative technologies.” Text messaging, once the exclusive domain of teenagers and college students bored in the classrooms, has become the lifeline tying the various members of this new-age Diaspora together. In our case, I would text my brother, and he would call me, closing the loop on the telecommunication connection. For those scattered, they make, and maintain, contact via text messages, since they can each call out but not receive calls.

Satellite radio also played a significant role. As one travels the highways, disconnected from the world around them, localized reports of trauma are just that–local, and limited in perspective. Some may report devastation, while others may report minimal impact. One is left without the 30,000 foot perspective. Or, in this case, the Low Earth Orbit perspective. Having XM Satellite radio enabled my brother to gain that bigger perspective, listening to the weather channel, Fox News, MSNBC and CNN, and other commentaries, each bringing their unique perspectives. The family remained connected, even without the gruesome video that the rest of us saw.

Once they arrived, enter technology of the LAST century. Arriving at 3 in the morning, the first objective, obviously, was to settle in. The second–reconnect with “the scattered remnant” through phones, and high speed internet service. In this house, we had 4 notebook computers and one desktop running wireless connections (windows, AND Mac OS X with the arrival of my brother). In addition, we have three other computers running wired connections, and the occasional high speed 802.11 connection for the PDA.

What did all this technology do? Within hours, my brother, and his wife, had compiled unofficial lists of friends, and their families, who had evacuated. They knew where people landed, and often the condition of the homes and offices they left behind. Additionally, colleagues of my brother found me, apparently through a Google search, and inquired as to his safety. From that point, conversations turned to how best to help those left behind, and coordinate actions, from around the country. Each pocket has become ambassadors for those that remain, carrying the stories, updated in near-real-time, to those that have taken them in.

The world has seen the power of humanity for evil, in the news. But the human spirit deserves credit here, as well. Being connected helps people continue to care, and ensures that the human face remains on the tragedy, and the need to help.

“La Palma Tsunami” Will Hit America, Bush Is Doing Nothing!

Did you ever find yourself wondering whether something is, or is not, satire?

I find it difficult to believe that someone thinks Bush should be doing something about the Canary Islands’ potential to devastate the East Coast. But then again, *I* still find it difficult to believe that people are blaming the Feds for the response (in New Orleans–they seem to be doing alright elsewhere) to the Hurricane and flooding. Perhaps, when people are given enough warning that a potential exists for a devastating event, the people themselves should be held responsible for not planning appropriately. If you lived in New Orleans, you have heard for years about the potential for a Hurricane filling the bowl. If you live in California, you know about the San Andreas Fault. You have made decisions to remain–and those decisions have consequences.

Apparently, Americans continue to prefer to blame others, for individually made bad decisions.

Take a day off from class…

Wow… I was all set to learn something useful about FEMA and their response to the crisis in New Orleans, and elsewhere.

Then I read the opening line for January 2001 that includes “a crony from Texas.”

Yup, THIS is going to be one VERY objective piece. Not.

Seriously–people are critical of FEMA, and argue that it has not responded quickly enough to the crisis in New Orleans. (by the way, I have not heard this criticism about their response to the HARDEST hit areas around Biloxi.)

My question for everyone critical of FEMA is simply: When was the last time those critical have had to plan and execute a contingency operation of this scale? An operation where most airfields are unsuitable for use, most roadways remain blocked or are “gone” as is the case with many bridges, and people trying to conduct relief operations are having shots fired at them?

Now, imagine trying to plan a major contingency before a crisis like this, and trying to figure out exactly what roads will, and will not, be available? Imagine not knowing which buildings will be available for occupancy, and which will not. Then imagine surrounding the city that everyone seems to fixate upon with two other states (minimum) in the same dire need, and imagine the gall that would be required to drive past all the needs of those people to satisfy the needs of those in “the Big Easy.”

This is an operation on a grand scale, and for those that haven’t done it, perhaps it looks “easy.” It is not–but I encourage them to try.

After seeing the comments from many (most noteably on http://tulanestudentinfo.blogspot.com/, in their criticism of FEMA) I am surprised anyone would want to be part of FEMA. Then again, I know many that are, and I solidly stand behind them, and their brilliant, and herculean efforts.

The Prof.