Covid-19 Data Issues in Saint Charles County

May 22 Update:
I reached out to the County Health Department about this discrepancy and received the following reply/explanation:

The County’s health and information systems departments did switch reporting systems recently and noticed an error in the presentation of reported numbers. This caused the issue you note, and this was corrected as soon as possible.

I am not sure if the switch refers to the update to the PowerBI dashboard or if it refers to the actual source they are collecting the data from. I have not nioticed any updates the the actual layout or content of the dashboard, so i assume it is the data source. If the change in source resulted in a greater than 5% negative change in reported cases, then there seems to be valid reason for concern with the validity of the numbers that have been previously reported.

---

Original post:
I have been tracking the spread of Covid-19 in St. Charles County since the day the first case was announced. For several weeks, the County only had a table of current data on the site, so I was manually tracking daily case totals in a spreadsheet in order to see the trends. Finally, the County utilized PowerBI to provide some graphs of the data in a dashboard format. However, the County had not created some of the graphs that I thought helped better tell the story, so I continue to input and update daily new cases and deaths into my spreadsheet, all based on the published County data.

Over the course of this pandemic, firm numbers regarding positive cases, and even deaths, have been hard to establish. For Saint Charles County, the tale is no different. Most days, I have to scroll back though the previous days and update a few up or down by 1 or 2 cases. Typically, most of the changes occur to dates within the past 14 days, which makes sense, as this is within the window of symptoms presenting and test results being obtained. However, over the past week, I have noticed that the numbers are changing on dates much further back in time. 

Ethanol and The Dust Bowl

Lisa and I recently watched the Ken Burns' documentary "The Dust Bowl". It was very interesting, very informative and very moving. The stories featured told of the causes of that environmental catastrophe, the impact of the event on the people in the area and the fragility of the land. It featured a lot from Timothy Eagan's wonderfully written book on the subject "The Worst Hard Time" - I highly recommend reading it.


Today I read this article "The Secret, Dirty Cost of Obama's Green Power Push" which details how the EPA, Department of Agriculture and the White House have pursued pushing ethanol as a sustainable biofuel, when the evidence is more and more to the contrary.

There are several things stated in the article that brought to mind the Dust Bowl, but this one really stood out to me:

Investors from as far away as Maryland and Pennsylvania have bought thousands of acres in Wayne County, sending prices skyrocketing from $350 per acre a decade ago to $5,000 today.

One in every four acres of in the county is now owned by an out-of-towner.
Those who still own land often rent it to farming companies offering $300 or more per acre. Perkins could make perhaps $27,000 a year if he let somebody plant corn on his land. That's nothing to dismiss in a county where typical household income is $36,000.
But he knows what that means. He sees the black streaks in his neighbor's cornfields, knowing the topsoil washes away with every rain. He doesn't want that for his family's land.

This is similar to what happened in the 1920s when the cost of grain skyrocketed and the government expanded homestead settlement programs. Investors from the big city or even out of state would purchase acreage or pay to farm someone's previously untouched existing acreage. The land hadn't previously been planted with crops because it was unsuitable for that type of farming. The huge increase in demand and price led to a boom of converting prairie land to farm land. Yet the fact remained, the newly converted land was historically known as not being suitable for crops. When the unusually wet years turned back to the normal dry years, the ground dried out and the soil began to erode and blow. When the drought of the 30s hit the former prairie lands, there was nothing to hold the soil down and it literally took off with the wind.

It would behoove us to learn from past mistakes and not farm land that is not meant to be farmed. It would be wise for our government to eliminate subsidies for programs that produce little benefit, encourage a misuse of the land and place us in a position that could lead to another environmental disaster.

In short, it would be beneficial for us as a country to learn from our own not-too-distant history.

On the Fiscal Cliff

Thomas Sowell expresses his thoughts about the Fiscal Cliff, and these portions echo exactly what I think and feel:

First of all, despite all the melodrama about raising taxes on "the rich," even if that is done it will scarcely make a dent in the government's financial problems. Raising the tax rates on everybody in the top two percent will not get enough additional tax revenue to run the government for ten days.

No previous administration in the entire history of the nation ever finished the year with a trillion dollar deficit. The Obama administration has done so every single year.

Referring to the Federal Reserve System's creation of hundreds of billions of new dollars out of thin air as "quantitative easing" makes it seem as if this is some soothing and esoteric process, rather than amounting essentially to nothing more than printing more money.
Debasing the value of money by creating more of it is nothing new or esoteric. Irresponsible governments have done this, not just for centuries, but for thousands of years.
It is a way to take people's wealth from them without having to openly raise taxes. Inflation is the most universal tax of all.

But it is not the same politically, so long as gullible people don't look beyond words to the reality that inflation taxes everybody, the poorest as well as the richest.

And there are these nuggets from Part 2:

A key lie that has been repeated over and over, largely unanswered, is that President Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" cost the government so much lost tax revenue that this added to the budget deficit-- so that the government cannot afford to allow the cost of letting the Bush tax rates continue for "the rich."

What is remarkable is how easy it is to show how completely false Obama's argument is.

What both the statistical tables in the "Economic Report of the President" and the graphs in Investor's Business Daily show is that (1) tax revenues went up-- not down-- after tax rates were cut during the Bush administration, and (2) the budget deficit declined, year after year, after the cut in tax rates that have been blamed by Obama for increasing the deficit.  

And here are the table and images referred to above:

The Election's Undecided

I'll start with letting you know this post does not endorse or oppose either candidate...

Tonight is the first Presidential debate for the 2012 election cycle. I have yet to determine if I will attempt to watch it live or in my usual, after-the-fact YouTube manner. I'm sure everyone reading this is just dying to find out what I think of it all, so I might update the page tomorrow with some of my thoughts.

One thing that seems clear to me with this election is that it seems to me that there are two very different candidates and agendas on this year's ballot. In some circles I am sure that is frowned upon, but I'm okay with the seemingly simplistic choices that are set before us as voters.

Is either candidate perfect? No. Candidates never are.
Do they represent everything everyone in their respective party believes in? No. Presidential candidates never represent the entirety of the party and never will be able to.

And then I read this today:

The "undecideds" make up roughly 6 percent of the electorate, with a slightly higher concentration in an Upper Midwest region including Ohio and Wisconsin, swing states that could determine the outcome of a close election.

What? How is this possible?
How do you look at the two candidates and not already know who you are going to pick?
I seriously have no idea how anyone could not have already formed their vote in this election.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by this fact, but I am.

If you don't know who you are going to vote for, do a little research.
It won't be hard, I promise.
You can start with the candidate websites.
You can perform news searches on each candidate.
You can watch hours of video containing campaign speeches, interviews and other information.

In my opinion, there is no reason whatsoever to not know who you will be voting for at this point in the game. The only way I see this as being possible is if you are a single issue voter and you don't know where the candidates stand on that issue. Given the amount of time and coverage that has already been poured into this election cycle, it is hard to believe that you all important single issue has not already been discussed by either candidate.

So tonight two men will take a stage and talk to a camera about a lot of different issues.
Then each campaign will spin what the other guy said to maximize the "damage" to gain a few votes.
Then the pundits will chime in with their thoughts and opinions.

Is it worth watching/listening to the debates? I believe it is.
Should it help you determine in this election who you will vote for? I don't believe so.

That decision should be clear enough by now on its own merits.

Questions About the KONY 2012 Campaign

A couple of brief thoughts on the KONY 2012 campaign:


- If people (myself included) proclaimed the Gospel as vocally as they promote a viral campaign, it would truly change the world.

- Social awareness may grow through social media, but it doesn't change the situation unless people actually put hands and feet to the problem.

- A well produced video can create a lot of noise on the web, but can it really bring about change?

- If an organization is willing to promote certain things as fact in such a way that is misleading, do you really want to give them your money?

- What happens if all these people donate to the charity and later find out that their money never impacted the life of a child in Uganda/Africa/anywhere?

- It is appropriate and responsible to question the motives behind such a movement and to use the past history of that organization to determine your involvement in promoting or donating to an organization.

---

If you want to help children in Africa, there are plenty of ways through various charities that are more efficient at getting the money to impact children, more transparent in their operation and more Bible-based in their approach.

A few charities worth considering:
WorldVision
Compassion International
Save the Children
Blood Water Mission


If you want to know why I think some of these things, do some research. Below are a few articles I found helpful.

Challies: KONY 2012

KONY 2012: A Survivor's Perspective

Kony 2012: Why I’m Opposed To The Campaign

Joseph Kony is not in Uganda (and other complicated things)

On KONY 2012: I wanted to stay as far away as possible...


The REDDIT comments are quite intriguing

The Cosmological Theory Questioned

Here's an example of when science does not discover what it expects to discover and scrambles:

Scientists cannot find many of the galazies that should exist around the Milky Way galaxy.

According to cosmological theory, says MIT astrophysicist Simona Vegetti, "there should be thousands of dwarf galaxies in the Local Group." That's because the earliest days of the cosmos were not a tidy time, and after the big galaxies came into being a lot of debris ought to have been left behind — "debris," in this case, meaning little galaxies, made partly of what's known as cold dark matter. The fact that we don't see the galaxies, she says, is due to one of three things: Either they're simply too faint to detect, or there's something unusual about the local cosmic neighborhood that would explain why it departs from the larger rule. Or — and this is the troubling alternative — maybe the theory itself, which has been generally accepted for the past 30 years or so, is fundamentally wrong in some way. 

So what does this mean?
The cosmological theory may be fundamentally wrong - as in, incorrect.  

The presented alternatives as to why these galaxies are missing are as follows, with my response:
1. These galaxies are just to faint to detect.  It is hard to believe that some of our closest neighbors would be invisible to the technology that allows us to peer across billions of light years to incredibly distant galaxies.
2. Our galaxy doesn't follow the cosmological rules for some reason. It seems difficult to accept that there may be some mysterious reason why our galaxy might not have behaved as every other galaxy is expected to during its creation.
3. The theory is fundamentally wrong in some way. I think this means that scientists are discovering that they cannot prove one of the fundamental things that should exist if the Big Bang did indeed form our galaxy. They aren't willing to state that they believe the theory is incorrect at this point, just that it may be flawed.

Here are a few unanswered questions that I have after reading this brief article:
1. Have the expected "debris" been seen in other galaxy neighborhoods? If not, then why is this theory even proposed? Does the theory itself exist strictly on the basis that the Big Bang would have had to result in such "debris" existing?

2. If "debris" has been documented elsewhere, were those galaxy neighborhoods larger or smaller in size when compared to the Milky Way? If the answer is yes and the neighborhood is larger than the Milky Way galaxy, then it leads me to alternative #2 above, which naturally points us to alternative #3. If the answer is yes and the neighborhood is smaller, then I fail tun understand why we cannot find our own "debris" and dismiss alternative #1 to land at #3, after a brief time at alternative #2. If the answer is no, then it leads me directly to alternative #3.

From my own personal Christian perspective, I believe that this leads me to the alternative not mentioned, which is that God made it all and placed it all exactly where He wanted it to be. Perhaps the reason they cannot find the "debris", which resulted from quickly moving masses colliding with one another to form galaxies over time, is because it didn't happen that way. Perhaps these galaxies were created in space as they are by a God who wanted to display His magnificence and splendor on a canvas that is wider than mankind ever imagined was even in existence.

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished..." - Genesis 2:1

"When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?" - Psalm 8:3-4

Our Current Position Visualized

This was the front page on CNN this morning and I couldn't resist capturing it and posting it here.

To me, this is a perfect example of what is wrong with our economy and country right now.
Warning: Generalized statements are about to be made which may not be true for all parties involved.

Standing for Nothing
There is a group of people who feel entitled to something without doing anything, or whatever it is they want. (see Occupy Something)

Speaking for Nothing
There is a group of wealthy people who feel that government should place even more of the burden on the rich. The fact that this call is now also coming from a couple dozen wealthier people does not change the fact that it is just another call to redistribute wealth. The fact that Warren Buffet is being used to champion this idea is simply ludicrous. (Buffet has sheltered his wealth from Federal Taxes and has admitted that he thinks the government would not handle the money as effectively and efficiently as a private organization.)

If the wealthy are so concerned with how much they have, they should stop making so much profit (money) or start giving a lot more of it away. This is their personal problem and not the government's problem. If they truly were struggling to sleep at night because they honestly believed that they had too much money and that it could be used to aid other people who desperately need it, they would have already set into motion the actions required to reconcile that conviction on their own. There is no role for the government required here. Thus, it is a cheap political stunt.


Neither of these groups represent a majority opinion. Far from it.

How did we end up here?
Our government has adopted the strategy of the one offered by the company to the right of the page. Spend what you do not have now, pay off less than the interest later and at some point down the line you will realize you are in way over your head and you will desperately need to change your behavior. However, like most Americans, our government refuses to change its spending behaviors, even after after the cost of continuing down the same road become patently clear and the outcome unavoidable.

How do I think we get out of this mess?
- We stop catering to the minority of the population  who screams the loudest. We stop handling them with soft gloves. If you want to protest anything, you need to do it within the bounds of the law. If you go beyond the law, then you should have the entirety of that law brought to bear against you and the organization you claim to represent.

- We need to stop listening to people who claim to offer solutions that appear selfless, when the reality is that their "solution" will not solve the problem. In fact, their path only leads to people other than themselves having more money taken away from them, thus increasing the gap between the ultra-rich and the wealthy.
- We stop spending money we do not have. We force our government to work for us, as it was intended. I do not work in order to pay for a government program. I work in order to have the ability to provide for my family's current and future needs. I am planning for my own future, as best as I can. It would be a lot easier for me if the government that is charged with protecting me woudl stop attacking me financially.
- We stop putting people in positions of power that cannot balance a budget. If you cannot run a household or business without going into debt, we do not need you attempting to guide the country. If you cannot run an election campaign without bungling your finances, we don't need you "helping" solve the crisis we have placed ourselves in as a nation.
- We stop electing people because they seem nice or energetic or young or whatever. We need to elect good, strong people to lead this country in a new direction. We need politicians who see it as being allowed to offer their services to their country and fellow citizens for a season, instead of having politicians who see it as the ultimate SWAG party and ridiculous retirement plan.
- We need to stop electing non-representatives. You work for me as well as the guy who disagrees with me. I am a fellow citizen of yours, just like he is - we are not just your constituents. You answer to me, even when you don't want to. If you make a choice that I find different from my desire, I have the right to express that opinion, regardless of how it might make you feel. If you do not want to hear the opinions of those that you claim to represent, then you have no right to claim to be their representative.
- We need to throw political correctness and sensitivity in the trash can. At the moment, there is very little room in political discourse for us to skirt around certain issues on our tippy toes because you or one of your lobbyist friends might take offense. Please be offended. Be offended that it took so long for you to feel or recognize how poorly you have done your job. Be offended at the fact that many of your actions have led us to this place. If you are too sensitive to deal with these very real, very large issues without getting your feathers ruffled through a lively, boisterous and heated debate, then there is no place for you in politics. Go home and cry in your bed for a while - the country will be better off with you there. This isn't to say that we should be hateful or disrespectful, but we should get fired up about what you are and are not doing with and to our country. That is patriotic. If you cannot handle grown up conversation in a real world that isn't filled with fairies and color-blindness, then you should go write children's stories and not attempt to tell us what stories we can and should read to our children.
- See Why I Think America is in Deep Trouble

Sorry about the length of this post. I got a bit carried away here. It started out as a quick picture and ended with me getting all riled up. I do not apologize for my convictions nor my vocalization of those beliefs, merely for the length of the content.

I hate politics as they are and dream of how I think they could be.
There are so many people on both sides of the aisle that do not deserve to be called representatives or leaders of our country. I am hoping that real world Americans begin to be better represented in the Washington DC.
That starts with you in the voting booth.
Get informed.
Get fired up.
Get represented.
Get America back on track.

Occupying Something

I've resisted posting anything about the Occupy Wall Street protests to this point, but I wanted to say something about it today.

Here in St. Louis, we have our version of it currently operating on downtown St. Louis. Even the local newspaper can't figure out what the fuss is about. With that being said, it seems that one of the common themes of these activities is to make the wealthy pay their "fair share", which apparently translates into simply meaning they need to "pay more". If the some of the people doing the protesting are, in fact, currently unemployed, then they are essentially working against themselves.

Let's say that the politicians adopt the strategy of taxing the wealthier even higher rates. Inevitably, this will lead to the wealthy moving their financial assets from the American economy to another economy with less exorbitant taxes. In doing so, the American government will take a massive hit on tax income. The result of that income loss will lead to program cuts. Undoubtedly, some of those program reductions/eliminations could be in the welfare programs that currently support the unemployed, although knowing that politicians recognize this program as a way to maintain/buy voter support for re-election, I doubt many drastic measures would be taken. In the above scenario, if cuts do happen in these programs, the unemployed will be the ones paying the price, not the wealthy. And if they didn't happen, the politicians would be scrambling to find other areas to reduce their expenditures. Given Washington's track record of late, I think it is more likely that they would borrow against the future even more and drive the country towards a place where unemployed protestors in a park are the least of our worries as a nation.

In the meantime, the lack of a clear agenda and recognized leader of the movement provide little reason to listen to them at all.

Get organized (beyond union lines), figure out what your issue is that you want changed, offer several viable solutions and work towards influencing people in a positive direction. At the moment, it would seem that this is a bunch of unhappy people ready to protest anything. And that is fine, because they have that right. And they have that right, because other people are working hard and paying their taxes. But that doesn't mean they should be given the power to dramatically impact the lives of others or the future of our nation.

We'll see how the protest hold up when the weather turns much colder.

- Oh, and with the St. Louis Cardinals going to the World Series, I'd like to see the fans of the game reclaim the public property that has been used as a rally area for years and, prior to Wednesday's game 1, take back Kiener Plaza from the "99%" that are currently monopolizing it.

Why I Think America Is In Deep Trouble

Last week I was thinking about all of the hype surrounding the debt-ceiling when it occurred to me that I haven't check the status of the Federal Reserve's Monetary Base lately. What follows is a lengthy post where I try to recapture all of my thoughts on this and various topics that I have written about over the course of the past few years.

I started tracking the Monetary Base prior to attending the April 15, 2009 Tea Party in downtown St. Louis, after which I posted my reasons for attending the tea party event. Included in that post was a graph showing the National Debt Per Capita and the Adjusted Monetary Base.

Tyrannosaurus Debt

From Schoolhouse Rocks:

The State of the Union 2011

As is my annual ritual, I read through the President's State of the Union Address this morning. I haven't read or listened to any political commentary at this point, so my perspective is untainted and solely my own.

There are several portions of the speech that I could draw attention to, but I will choose only two.
Here's the first:

And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply can’t afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. (Applause.) Before we take money away from our schools or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break. It’s not a matter of punishing their success. It’s about promoting America’s success. (Applause.)
In fact, the best thing we could do on taxes for all Americans is to simplify the individual tax code. (Applause.) This will be a tough job, but members of both parties have expressed an interest in doing this, and I am prepared to join them. (Applause.)

Okay, where to start. If you truly care about the deficit, you will stop spending more than you have. Period. This isn't rocket science. Don't spend what you don't have. That means that you can't create new government institutions, agencies, positions and programs until you have funded existing programs. Since the existing programs were running a deficit when the President took office, he should have reigned in spending and reduced the size of the Federal government. But he didn't. He increased its size and scope and buried the nation under a crushing amount of debt that will cripple us in the coming years if the tough decisions aren't made.

The idea of sacrificing for the good if the nation is noble and all, but when the government doesn't choose to adopt the same strategy, one has to question the motivation behind this course of action. America's success isn't going to be determined by whether or not the wealthiest Americans are taxed higher. Her success will be determined by how well the Federal government allows the American people to innovate, create and prosper - including financially. When you tax the wealthiest people at an ever-increasing rate, what do you suppose the final outcome of that will be? Inevitably, the wealthy people find the loopholes, reinvest their finances in other places, or they simply move to a place that will not tax them so heavily.

I'm all for simplifying the tax code. What currently exists is so convoluted and complex that even the government institution chartered to enforce those regulations (the IRS) is having trouble keeping up.Contrary to what the President and members of the government believe, this is a fairly simple goal to accomplish. It's called a flat tax. The amount of paperwork and hassle that such a system would remove from businesses is huge. The reduction in size of the Federal government, by way of drastically reducing the size of the IRS, would be sizable. While I am open to the idea of reducing and removing large portions of the existing to tax code as a preliminary step, I cannot see how this type of effort would prove worthwhile over the course of time. Every year there are additions to the tax code. I am of the opinion that a flat tax would work and would allow the citizens and companies of this great land to prosper. The only way this would work is if the government is held accountable and sticks to a non-deficit increasing budget. (That's sounds a lot like common sense, doesn't it. Some might even say it's Constitutional.)

[Feel free to insert a rant about the Federal Reserve's ability to print an unlimited amount of currency here.]

Here's the second portion that I want to draw attention to:

And because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren’t larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this:  If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.  I will veto it.  (Applause.)

Let's see how long it takes to break this promise. I cannot imagine the President being able to stick to this. Now perhaps the senators and Congressman will find another way to tack on their pet projects, or call them by a different name, but I just don't see this being a line in the sand that the President is unwilling to withdraw from.

Overall, the speech read like most of the State of the Union speeches. Obviously, I cannot speak to the effectiveness of the President's delivery of these words, nor to the receptiveness of the blended-party crowd. I am sure there is plenty being said about all that extraneous stuff anyway. If I find anything worth linking to or pointing out as I read more and hear more today, I will add it to the bottom of this post.

A Big Mess Disappears?

Guess what?

All that oil that has been spewing out into the Gulf of Mexico for the past several months has suddenly gone missing...

From this ABC News article:

The numbers don't lie: two weeks ago, skimmers picked up about 25,000 barrels of oily water. Last Thursday, they gathered just 200 barrels.


Still, it doesn't mean that all the oil that gushed for weeks is gone. Thousands of small oil patches remain below the surface, but experts say an astonishing amount has disappeared, reabsorbed into the environment.

Possible reasons for this?

The light crude began to deteriorate the moment it escaped at high pressure, and then it was zapped with dispersants to speed the process along. The oil that did make it to the ocean's surface was broken up by 88-degree water, baked by 100-degree sun, eaten by microbes, and whipped apart by wind and waves.

I think it is way too early to assume that there might be no long-term effects of this in that environment, but if what some of these scientists are saying is true, then it is truly amazing what is happening in that water.

(HT: Michael Williams)

The State of the Union 2010 - My Thoughts

I am getting ready to read through and listen to the State of the Union address that the President gave last night (video). Below are my thoughts as the speech unfolds. Any quotes have been taken directly from the official White House transcript.

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -– immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.

It would seem to me that there was no effort made to reduce the government debt during the past year. In fact, quite the contrary seems self-evident. The worst of that storm is yet to come and will be felt most keenly by our children and their children.

Our Response to Haiti is Deadly

Reading this story about Haiti this morning, I was shocked by this line:

A U.S. Air Force C-17 circumvented airport congestion by dropping 55,000 pounds -- about 40 pallets -- of bottled water and food into Haiti on Monday, the first U.S. airdrop of supplies.

The first airdrop of supplies into a nation that has basically zero infrastructure left just took place yesterday?!??!
Really?
Almost one full week after the initial 7.0 magnitude earthquake?
That's right.
The quake happened at 3:53:10 last Tuesday and the first airdrop of supplies happened the following Monday after 6 days of struggling to get aid in through the overcrowded airport.

It is 681 miles from Miami, Fl to Haiti.
That means that it took approximately 144 hours to moves 40 pallets of goods almost 700 miles. That's an average travel time of just under 5 miles per hour (4.729 to be exact). That means that if you could walk on water, you could have walked to Haiti and delivered a bottle of water faster than this first airdrop took place.

I guess that I have been assuming that we were doing airdrops from day 2 (last Wednesday) and assumed that we were getting supplies to the people who desperately needed them. It took us 2 days to begin airdrops in Banda Aceh, Indonesia after the tsunami there and that is on the other side of the globe (over 6,000 miles from Hawaii).

Why is it taking us so long to figure out how to attach some parachutes to some pallets of water and food and fly it to a place that is less than a 4 hour roundtrip away?

In my opinion, FEMA Administrator Fugate has got some explaining to do.
After Hurricane Katrina, our President caught a lot of flack for telling Mr. Brown he did a "heck of a job" with hurricane Katrina response, most of it altogether justified and deserved in my opinion. With an understanding that this is not on US soil and there are other nations involved, how do we not look at Mr. Fugate's response and question its effectiveness?

Do we need to try and work within the confines of the international community and get "permission" to carry out missions in their country? Sure. But while all of that bureaucracy is taking place, you load the planes and get them airborne. If you don't get the "all clear" to enter their airspace before you arrive you can either continue circling the island or simply fly over it and drop your supplies. Let's face it, Haiti is not going to shoot you out of the sky and the people need the supplies you would be delivering. Sure, some countries might raise a stink about us violating their sovereign rights as a nation or whatever, but I am pretty sure the people of Haiti and the government of Haiti would be quick to overlook such a deviation from international protocol.

In my opinion, something is terribly broken with how we have responded to this disaster. And I fear that many Haitians have paid for the delay with their lives.