Good sentiments, but a paragon of the "straw man" argument.
Reading it at face value says to me that the NYT expected HS to have evacuation plans for major cities; the straw man is that the state of LA did, so NYT criticism of HS is invalid.
And the Iraq Constitution, as written, does indeed include Sharia law as the source. Straw man number two is to make a lot of noise about a certain number of seats reserved for women and simply ignore the Sharia part.
In Iran, it is an absolute, and outside religious authorities can overrule any decision of the government. In Iraq, that is NOT an absolute, and no power is granted to any person or entity outside the government. There is a "take-back" clause in the Iranian Constitution, as there was in the Constitution of the USSR. There is no take-back clause in the Iraqi Constitution.
And there is no straw man in the other part, either. The 2000 Louisiana Evacuation Plan was developed because the FEMA law required that, and paid some/all of its costs. When HS was created, it inherited all of FEMA's law, regulations, personnel AND all 51 (including DC) existing state Plans.
Again, in 400 words I couldn't discuss that. But the truth is as I stated. And the Times was both incompetent and dishonest.
John / Billybob