Submitted by Mike Friedman, Aug 29, 2011 11:44

Perhaps a more nuanced view rather than a well deserved polemic against the "Nanny State" is appropriate. Given the predictions and necessary logistics and time lines, it appears that moving nursing home and hospital residents, elderly and infirm from the immediate low lying costal areas ( such as Manhattan Beach or the Rockaways) was smart. Identifying higher risk areas and providing evacuation centers and making transportation to the same available was smart. Trying to panic the population by incessant and dramatic warnings and trying to impose mandates was not. However, those staying in a low lying coastal area where a hurricane is expected to hit must take adequate precautions and not expect rescue when things go bad. The corollary of opposition to the Nanny State is taking responsibility for one's actions and not expecting someone esle to take risks or expend funds to save one from the consequences of one's own voluntay decisions which turn out to have been in error. People voluntariy staying in low lying coastal areas in the expected track of the storm should have been simply warned and told: " We will not put our first responders at risk to rescue you later." And such a policy implimented. The decision to protect rail road and subway equipment so as to be able to provide services after the storm is a bit more difficult to evaluate and I would give the decision makers here the benefit of the doubt. Cancelling bus service which could be more easily modulated as, when and if the storm intensity so required was, in my opinion a poor decision. I think you also may have not taken account of the effects of the 24 hour press coverage as well as the press' need for "drama" on public officials perceptions of what was expected of them. This latter issue would be a good subject for further analysis and comment.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.