The three questions to ask after a crime or catastrophe.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Whenever something bad happens which might in theory not have happened - a terrorist attack, the oil leak, the failed response to Katrina, a school shooting etc - there's usually a strong public mood that Something Must Be Done - either someone must be punished, or the rules must be changed, or both but very little sense as to which, what or even whether.

I think one should always follow the same steps:

1) Were there rules in place which, if followed, would have prevented this happening/made it less bad?
2) If so, why were they not followed - the person responsible may need to be punished.
3) If not, are there ways that the rules/laws can be changed that would make things like this less likely without doing more harm than good

The answer to 3) is often "no, making things like this less likely is not worth the cost, we should just endure".

[WingDinger]

1. Would it pay to have a legal review at intervals?

Most laws and standards NEED reform, as they and all other changes were put off, for a decade. The Repubs think that Obama is too communist to make any changes. They should stonewall, as they are the only ones that follow the Con. And laws and certifications that are dictated to Gov by industry, are certain to be inadequate, shortsighted and only acting as PR for industry. Most quality regimens in most companies are inadequate. The likelihood of even suffering Gov scrutiny is almost nil, unless there is an accident.