Reading the first three chapters of David McCullough\u2019s book, it is obvious that McCullough attempts to blame a variety of people for the events around the 1889 storm.\u00a0 However, I believe some of the targeting is a too harsh and unwarranted, especially on the members of the South Fork organization.\u00a0 Clearly McCullough tries to place considerable blame on these elite businessmen who established, lived, and were members of the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club.\u00a0 Pointing out members like Carnegie who willingly financed the dam\u2019s research, acknowledged the risks presented by Fulton and Morrell, yet ignored calls to fix the structure.\u00a0 \u00a0McCullough is extremely harsh on the men of the South Fork essentially stating that their frugality endangered Johnstown.\u00a0 However, the more I read chapter two and three, the more I tended to agree with Catherine <\/a>that this disaster should not be blamed on these people.\u00a0 During the second chapter especially, I could not help but think of extravagant homes from around the word and potential blame if something extreme were to happen.\u00a0 For example, you hear about celebrity homes on the foothills of LA that clear out vast amounts of space for views of the downtown or houses in Malibu built on cliffs for better ocean views.\u00a0 Should we blame them for forest fires in dry areas because some material in their houses slightly expedited the natural progression of a fire?\u00a0 If an earthquake were to hit, could we blame those in Malibu for potential landslides because their houses disrupted natural landscape?\u00a0 Additionally, I thought of houses along ski resorts and if an avalanche were to occur, would we blame those inhabitants that who created a cliff while building their house, ultimately facilitating an avalanche?\u00a0 I understand there is a difference between these example and building an unstable dam, yet I just do not think you can put blame for these people for the severity of the rain was what caused most of the problems.\u00a0 As McCullough states, the rain had already caused flood from anywhere between 2-10 feet before the dam broke.\u00a0 This storm produced rain unlike anything ever produced or ever expected.\u00a0 As Sarah<\/a> points out the engineers did everything according to code and did a \u201ccompetent job\u201d. Everything was up to standard set up by the government and maintaining the dam was not a requirement.\u00a0 The residents of the club had done everything legally required.<\/p>\n Placing blame for something unnatural starts a slippery slope when it comes to proving a precedent for responsibility.\u00a0 By definition, unnatural is something out of the ordinary; impossible to predict.\u00a0 By placing blame on the elite members along the Fork, people are implying that they should predict the future.\u00a0 The storm was of greater magnitude than ever expected so how could one prepare for something like that.\u00a0 I feel this would be very different had a smaller rain storm destroyed the walls because that was something that could have happened at any time.\u00a0 Going back to the house at a ski resort, if there were to be a snow storm of epic scale followed by a subsequent avalanche, could we blame the person when for x number of years their cliff had produced no problems.\u00a0 So long as regulations are met, we cannot place blame for predicting the unexpected.\u00a0 That is not to say that these people did not inhibit to the severity of the damage, yet there needs to be a line between willful endangerment and something like this.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Reading the first three chapters of David McCullough\u2019s book, it is obvious that McCullough attempts to blame a variety of people for the events around the 1889 storm.\u00a0 However, I believe some of the targeting is a too harsh and unwarranted, especially on the members of the South Fork organization.\u00a0 Clearly McCullough tries to place … <\/p>\n