Hacker Boy (hackng into this despicable blog, while still making no comment on Skip's outrageous charge that I am connected to Rupert Murdoch and/or the unfair and unbalanced network): "Skip, yoiu have done it again. You know full well that Irene will not be a catetory 4 hurricane as it approaches New York City."
Skip: "I checked it out. Hacker Boy is right again. However, I thought I was on SOLID ground on this one. I saw a MAJOR story--with scare stuff and pictures and everything--on a cable TV network about how a category 4 hurricane woud affect New York Citgy--with the clear message that Irene ws potentially such a hurricane. ALL of the stories I saw as Irene hit the Bahamas talked about how Irene would STRENGTHEN into probably a catetory 4 hurricane--at least a strong category 3--after it left the Bahamas. The implicaton was always there that Ireen COULD be a category 4 hurricane almost alll of the way up the East Coast. And the story has been for at least a WEEK that Irene will almost surely be the first "major" hurricane to hit the U.S. in 3 years--with a hing of DISAPPOINTMENT in every such story that the media has not been able to HYPE such a storm in the past three years. Yes, the media looks at Katrina (incorrectly, unless you really think 10,000 people died in New Orleans) as its "glory days", for which the media YEARNS to return. If lyou understand me to be saying that many in the media yearn for death and destruction, you are readig me correctly.
What is wrong with media hurricane coverage--ALL of it? What is wrong is that, as is true of the way modern "journalists" cover everything else these days, the media is UNINTERESTED in the FACTS. Look at the old "Dragnet" TV show if you don't know wahat I mean by a fact. For hurricanes, the "facts" are its path (with caveats that the path is always uncertain), the intensity and strength, and the FACOTRS that might strengthen or weaken the storm.
What aer the facts on Irene? Well, right now it is projected to make "landfall" on the outer banks of North Carolina as a Category 1 hurricane. Yep. That is what I said: a Category 1 hurricane--the WEAKEST of the hurricane categories, and NOT a "major" hurricane (unless you change the definition). Is the media eve TALKING aoubt how WRONG their projections-almost all of their stories--were? Not on your lie, which tells you the reason for the HYPE in the first place. It is what I call the "horror movie syndrome". Media people believe--proably with some justification as tothe validity of their opinion, but NO "justification" for prostituting themselves based on this opinion--that people WANT to be SCARED. Or, to put it with more accuracy, peple get a THRILL out of the WORST "projections", no matter what the facts are. Thus, in El Paso you get about 5 stories every winter about possible major SNOW storms, even thouhg we get a "major" (for El Paso) snow storm about once ever three to five eyars. But if you PROMOTE a weather/"news" broadcast as telling the audience about SNOW, the idea is that yoiu will get a greater audience. Am I cynical? Not nearly as much as these DIHONEST "journalists" who HYPE hurricanes and weather events.
Fact: There NEVER was gong to be a Category 4 hurricane hit New York City. My duaghter lives in NYC, and I told her that (in foresight, as usual). I almost did a blog article on the subject, but never got around to it. The fact is that Irene MAY not be a hurricane at all when it reaches the NYC area. It is now pojected to be a WEAK Category 1 hurricane.
Is Irene a dangerous storm? Of course. Any hurricane deserves respect. But as far as WIND is concerned, it is probably only a little more dangerous than a strong El Paso THUNDERSTORM. It is a lot LESS dangerous than a midwest TORNADO (almost always more dangerous for WIND than a hurricane). What is the real danger from Irene? FLOODING (massive rain). But notice that it is possible to have massive flooding without a hurricane. What am I saying? I am saying that if this country cannot deal effectively--without shutting down entire states and cities--with a Category 1 hurricane, then we might as well hang it up. We are doomed. Nope. I am still not saying to ignore a hurricane. People on low-lying islands should generally get out. People in low-lying, flood prone areas should take precautions. Everyone shoud be purdent. But "prudent" does NOT mean spending BILLIONIS of dollars on every hurricane "threat" (including hurricanes that don't even hit us).
What is in the running for the WORST decision by public officials in modern times? Theattempted evacukation of Houston for Hurricane Rita. That decsion KILLED people, as it was IMPOSSIBLE to evacuate Houston (the whole ciet). Am I saying you should NEVER evacuate NYC--the whole city? Damn right. If you cant't do better than that, you should not be mayor, or governor, or whoever makes the decision. Now I don't think NYC is being evacuated (let us hope not), but there ar e stories aobut shutting down the transportation system. STUPID. No, I am not talkingaabout a CONTINGENCY plan if Irene were bearing down on NYC as a Category 3 hurricane. I ma talking about no CYA PANIC, before a decision needs to be made--especailly if that panic is partly based on "news" HYPE aoubt a Category 3/4 storm Is it (barely) pssible for a Category 4 hurricane to hit NYC? Yes. But it was IMPOSSSIBLE for Irene to be such a strm. And the odds are ALWAYS about a thousand to 1 against.
What is wrong with SCAREING peopple? Well, you might ask those DEAD people in Houston who died in the EVACUATION. But the idea that people need to be LIED to in order to get them to do the right thing is an EVIL idea, with NO redeeming social value. Have you never heard of "the boy who cried wolf"? Tell people the facts. Storm surge is NOT going to cover Washington D.C. Flooding from RAIN is a real danger in lowlying areas. The WIND of Hurricane Irene is not much of a real danger--so long as you don't get really stupid. You may be in about as much danger from lightning. Now can the wind blow down a flimsy structure, or one that is somehow vulnerable? Of course. So can the 70 mph winds in a strong El Paso thunderstorm. It is the HYPE, and overreatction to the facts, that is wrong here--not reasonable cautiion.
Am I saying we are gong way beyond reasonable caution for hurricanes? Damn right I am saying that. We are getiting to the point that we may PARALYZE the country if a REAL Category 5 hurricane approaches. Hell, we are getting to the point that we will paralyze a god part of the country if a Category 1 hurricane approaches. I was ALIVE (altough not there) when Category 5 Camille struk the U.S We could handle that sort of theing back then. Now we seem unable to do it. Is part of the problem too many people in hurricane zones? Sure. Bt we HAVE to learn how to deal reasonably with these storms. No wonder we can't deal with our deficit. We can't even deal in a cost effective--humanity effective--way with a Category 1 hurricane.
No. I REJECT the idea that we shold PLAN for a Category 5 hurricane every time a hurricane appears in the Carribean. Contingency plans, yes. Overplanning for a worst case scenario, NO. Why not? Because it is STUPID. As a country, and as a threatened area, we need to make plans based on FACTS--with the ability to adjust to changing facts quickly. That means NO "evacuation" of MAJOR CITIES (okay, I am not sure what to do about a good part of New Orleans--sort of a special case). We really need to learn how to fact "threats" with EFFECTIVE use of resources, and not with the idea that it does not matter how much OVERKILL and HYPE we put out there. Concentrate on effectively dealig with the real risks, and not the IMAGINARY risk of New York City being hit with a Category 4 hurricane. Not one second. That is how much time I would have spent "preparing" for Irene AS A CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE. Prepare for the real. Have a contingency paln (NOT developed because of Irene, or in connectin with Irene) as to an unexpected, once -in-a-centry event. But don't OVERHYPE real events.
Of couurse we now do this with almost everything. It is almost "lucky" that you don't have much time to prepare for tornaodes (which really do kill people with wind). It keeps us from this ridiculous hype we get with the slow developing threat of a hurricane (when the "slow developng" part SHOULD enable us to deal really well). Lok at nuclear plants, and the SCARE stories? Look at HqN1 flu ("swine flu"). Remember that? The health organizatinos declared it a "pandemic"--totally devaluing the word (as this blog told you AT THE TIME. The media thinks we LIKE to be scared unnecessarily. No chance of a tsunami AND an earthquake above 7.0 in most of the U.S.? Doesn't matter. We still get the HYPE on whether our nuclear plants can deal with that. You have to live in the REAL--not in a fantasy world of your own making. Do you want to confirm the media view of you: that you WANT to be scared as basically entertainment, and will reward the people who HYPE instead of ginve you the facts (as if you are adults)? I hope not.
What would I advise my daughter in New York City? Well, I would advise her not to STAND out in the wind and rain (like a stupid media person). I would advse here not to walk along the water, as the storm is affecting the city. I would advise here to stay out of low-lying areas prone to flooding. Yes, I would even advise here to try to keep up with the FACTS on the situation (hard as that is). Otherwise, I see no reason for her to change her life.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkig (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment