Katrina Disaster

[Colleen Thomas]

Guys.

Whether you agree with the article fully, think some points were made, think it's complete bunk, or even worse that it's racist, sexist, whatever isn't the point.

The point, is that the assumptions you are making, no matter how strongly held, aren't neccissarily the same assumptions being made by other thinkers. And your assumptions color every conclusion you draw from them. The same can be said for other thinkers. The bedrock assumptions need only be slightly different, to draw wildly dispartite conclusions.

So while one person might see racism or eliteism, another might see government incompetence, yet another might find local authority to be to blame, while another might find the looters and shooters the most salient point.

It just seemed to me this argument here was very well defined, with strongly entrenched positions on both sides. I felt perhaps it might be good for all of us to realize wherever we stand, our positions are based on assumptions. We don't all share the same assumptions. We aren't drawing the same conclusions.

Perhaps instead of arguing over who or what is to blame, perhaps we should all look at our own assumptions and each other's assumptions. Rather than butting heads with those who hold "unreasonable" positions.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Personally, I don't really know if the response to the hurricane could have been better or what went wrong. I'm willing to wait for the various reports of the various commissions (assuming they're legitimate and not cover-ups or smear jobs). I think the 9/11 commission did a good job, for example.

I don't believe the fuck-ups were predominantly race-based. Income-based, maybe, but I don't think there was any conscious thought of not helping these people because they were predominantly black.

But in the discussion of what went wrong and why, I don't see the place for the old "all welfare recipients are criminals" argument. Why don't we just blame the disaster on greedy Jews or right-wing Christians? Or what about those criminal Italians? This article is in the same league.

I don't know the extent of the rioting and looting that took place in NO. I've heard it was major; I've heard it was blown all out of proportion. I know that the same thing happens any time a major city loses power and it's usually the same criminal underclass of people. Whether they're on welfare or not I don't know, but to say that all public aid recipients are criminals--and read the article. That's what he says--is just bullshit.

Are there criminals in the underclasses? Of course there are. Do you think ending welfare will put an end to that? Hardly. Do you think these criminals were the main reason that the response to the tragedy in NO was so shameful and inept? Give me a break.

We can have honest differences in our opinions of what went wrong, but this is just racist demagogery of the worst, most ignorant kind. I don't care who's passing this article around and agreeing with it, they should know better, and I'd be as ashamed to associate with them as I would be associating with people who believed the Jews ran the world or other racist bullshit.

 

[shereads]

WASHINGTON - The federal government plans to begin doling out debit cards worth $2,000 each to adult victims of Hurricane Katrina, The Associated Press has learned.

Homeland Security Department Secretary Michael Chertoff descibed the plan in a conference call with state officials Wednesday morning. The unprecedented cash card program initially will benefit stranded people who have been moved to major rescue centers such as the Houston Astrodome.

"They are going to start issuing debit cards, $2,000 per adult, today at the Astrodome," said Kathy Walt, a spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

The cards could be used to buy food, transportation, gas and other essentials the displaced people need, according to a state official who was on the call and requested anonymity because the program has not been publicly announced.

Unfortunately, there are still places where people are unaware that any help is available and have no way to go where it's offered if they knew. A CNN reporter in a low-income area of Biloxi (somehow journalists find access to what's inaccessible) was approached by the neighborhood commissioner and told they hadn't seen anyone from FEMA or the Red Cross and that no one in the neighborhood had a way to drive out. She asked him if anyone he knew had received their debit card. He didn't know what she was talking about. There was still no power, no communication from the outside world.

 

[shereads]

Entitled: Duke students beat feds in aiding stranded victims

I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.

~ Blanche Dubois

 

[shereads]

Just exactly what does the poltical affiliation of Alabama and Missisippi's governers have to do with the simple fact that the response is not as screwed up in the areas under their jurisdiction as it is in Lousiana.

Specifically, Bush singled out the governors of those states and praised their performance. To insinuate that either of them out-performed the governor (D) of Louisiana would be disingenous even if the White House hadn't lied to the Washington Post about the timing of her request for federal disaster assistance. (See the timeline.)

With all respect for the losses suffered in Mississippi and Alabama (I have family in Biloxi) neither of those states lost a city and economic center the size of New Orleans, after doing battle with the federal government over the funding to keep it from being this bad. So comparing how three governors performed is rather pointless.

Unless the point is to take a cheap shot at the governor of Louisiana (D). Why would the White House do that?

Because one of three governors didn't stand with the president at a press conference and exchange congratulations for jobs well-done. One of three governors played by FEMA's rules and got screwed anyway.

Most importantly, one of three governors represents a state that knew this catastrophe was coming, had seen the computer models along with the Bush administration and FEMA during discussions of funding, and knew that they knew the model predicted up to 200,000 stranded people who would need to be fed, evacuated and sheltered after the fact.

The White House retracted its statement to the Post about the timing of her phone call to the feds. But as Karl Rove knows, retractions aren't news. He's the grand master of the smear campaign and while the White House bemoans "the blame game" Rove will be looking for good targets.

It's unfortunate that there isn't a country we can invade to make sure this never happens again. Bush needs fall guys. He'd prefer foreign ones, but you take what you can get.

 

[Guest]

Dunno what to say really, but I have been shocked and horrified by what I've seen and heard on the news coverage here.

Shocked and horrified for many reasons, not least of which the initial devastation caused by the hurricane.

I just hope everyone is able to re-build their lives, eventually. And also that all those who died are finally given the dignity of burial. Quite shocking.

It has greatly warmed my heart to see the love and generosity displayed by individuals in the US. The least I say about the government, the best, I think.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Specifically, Bush singled out the governors of those states and praised their performance. To insinuate that either of them out-performed the governor (D) of Louisiana would be disingenous even if the White House hadn't lied to the Washington Post about the timing of her request for federal disaster assistance. (See the timeline.)

With all respect for the losses suffered in Mississippi and Alabama (I have family in Biloxi) neither of those states lost a city and economic center the size of New Orleans, after doing battle with the federal government over the funding to keep it from being this bad. So comparing how three governors performed is rather pointless.

Unless the point is to take a cheap shot at the governor of Louisiana (D). Why would the White House do that?

Because one of three governors didn't stand with the president at a press conference and exchange congratulations for jobs well-done. One of three governors played by FEMA's rules and got screwed anyway.

Most importantly, one of three governors represents a state that knew this catastrophe was coming, had seen the computer models along with the Bush administration and FEMA during discussions of funding, and knew that they knew the model predicted up to 200,000 stranded people who would need to be fed, evacuated and sheltered after the fact.

The White House retracted its statement to the Post about the timing of her phone call to the feds. But as Karl Rove knows, retractions aren't news. He's the grand master of the smear campaign and while the White House bemoans "the blame game" Rove will be looking for good targets.

It's unfortunate that there isn't a country we can invade to make sure this never happens again. Bush needs fall guys. He'd prefer foreign ones, but you take what you can get.

I'm not going to disagree with you sher, but in fairness, Mississippi dosen't have an economic center the size of New Orleans. The gaming industry on the coast is a staggering blow to the tax revenues of this state, not to mention the commercial seafood industry lost, plus the cruiselines that left from gulport and the tourism (admittedly gaming related). This falling on the heels of the announced closing of the meridian naval air station. It's every bit as staggering a setback as looseing New orleans is to La. Perhaps more so, because we won't be seeeing the lion's share of the dollars allocated by congress to rebuild even though we took the brunt of the storm while La. as a state, got off pretty lightly in comparrison.

 

[thebullet]

But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about
saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own
anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their
businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried
about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But
living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.

People living in piles of their own trash, while petulantly complaining
that other people aren't doing enough to take care of them and then
shooting at those who come to rescue them-this is not just a
description of the chaos at the Superdome. It is a perfect summary of the 40-year
history of the welfare state and its public housing projects.

It's true. These people are animals. Just give them an excuse and they will turn into the animals that they are. Katrina was just the excuse they needed to return to the mindless, violent criminals that lies at the base of every welfare recipient and poor black person.

Thank God for George Bush who waited long enough for a few thousand of them to kill each other off. And die of thirst. And drown.

Hanging was too good for them.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

It's true. These people are animals. Just give them an excuse and they will turn into the animals that they are. Katrina was just the excuse they needed to return to the mindless, violent criminals that lies at the base of every welfare recipient and poor black person.

Yeah. You know, welfare dependency also explains why Finns are such notorious rioters and looters too. All of them live in a welfare state, so what can you expect? All they do is flash gang signs outside their saunas and pop out babies to increase their income, just waiting for the lights to go out so they can loot Helsinki and steal all the Nokia phones.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/05/AR2005080502015_pf.html

Swedes too, driving around in their pimped out welfare-Volvos and busting caps on either other, never doing a day's work, free-basing sour cream and lutfisk. The Dutch too, those Gouda-sniffing bums.

In fact, the deplorable conditions in all of Europe are traceable to their misguided welfare programs. I guess that guy's article was right on the money.

--Zoot

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Yeah. You know, welfare dependency also explains why Finns are such notorious rioters and looters too. All of them live in a welfare state, so what can you expect? All they do is flash gang signs outside their saunas and pop out babies to increase their income, just waiting for the lights to go out so they can loot Helsinki and steal all the Nokia phones.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/05/AR2005080502015_pf.html

Swedes too, driving around in their pimped out welfare-Volvos and busting caps on either other, never doing a day's work, free-basing sour cream and lutfisk. The Dutch too, those Gouda-sniffing bums.

In fact, the deplorable conditions in all of Europe are traceable to their misguided welfare programs. I guess that guy's article was right on the money.

--Zoot

Of all the reactions to that article doc, I find your's the most disheartening. I expect an unreasonable holier than thou reaction from the bullet. It's just the way he is. From you I expected at least some consideration of the point I was trying to make.

The people you would find abhorent to be around are my folks, their church, garden club, and civic organizations. My dad is retired, but gets up every day and works till dark, if not on some project for church, in his garden or on his house. Accusing him of racism is a cop out. It's a quick answer to protect your own assumptions from being examined. And it's beneath you.

My folks were born in the 40's, they remember rationing and VE day. They were both raised by familes hard hit by the depression. Both were born on farms, were working in some capacity as soon as they could stand, and both elevated themselves above that. My mom was an RN, my dad a counsellor. He spent a good chunk of his life counselling kids trying to get nursing degrees and helping them find scholarships and ways to finance that. And ahigh percentage of them were minority kids.

The article has resonace to them, not because of rasicsm, but because of their bedrock assumptions. One of them being able bodied men don't sit around on thier asses collecting welfare checks. They work. Another being the tenet that no one is owed a living by the governemnt, you earn what you get in the world.

Their antique values, learned before you or I were born, before the idea that people were entitled to anything from their government beyond police and military, still hold.

When a woman who can't be 25 comes on the television bitching about goverment reaction time to the plight of her and her ten children in New Orleans, they have serious problems making that jive with what they know. People aren't supposed to go on public assistance and stay their their entire lives. It's disgraceful.

Their assumptions differ from yours. Their conclusions and reactions as well.

What really is so disheartening to me is you didn't even pause to consider where they might be coming from, which is all i was trying to point out. You just reacted, fairly virulently to the article. there is really no wonder to me this country is so polarized, when people of tremendous intellect like yourself go straight into attack mode when confronted by something from the other side of the asile. It's especially troubling when you realize there canbe no comrpomise when otherwise reasonable and rational people react in such a way.

 

[sophia jane]

Colly-
I understood the point of the article you posted. I suspect that to get it, one must see the abuse of the welfare system in action. Not everyone sees the "bad" side of welfare, sees the way it can, in fact, defeat its own purpose by creating a group of people who don't want assistance but instead expect to be cared for. The idea behind the welfare system is a good one- to help those who are in need, who can not work for some reason or are simply having a difficult time. Unfortunately, the sad truth is there are people who abuse it. There are families where three generations of people are on welfare because that is what they know, because they were born into it and know that if they go to the welfare office, they will get their monthly check and their food stamps. These people do not attempt to find their own way by getting a job; they simply cash their government check. I'm not saying everyone on welfare is like this. There are those who can not work, those who want to work but can't find a job, those who are needed home to care for relatives or children. Those are the peope the welfare system was designed for. But like everything, some people take advantage of a good thing.

Whether or not the welfare state is to blame for what happened in New Orleans, I can't say. I think that it may have been a contributing factor. But there were many factors involved in this mess.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[rgraham666]

The one thing that in the article dr_m posted that stood out for me was the assumption that Americans were more individualistic than the Finns.

This, in my opinion, is no more that chauvinism on the authour's part. I see few signs that this is the case. Group think is a human trait, not a Finnish one.

Colleen, I was raised by the same sort of people as you. And what I learned was the exact opposite lesson. I learned that hard work and intelligence are actually fairly secondary considerations in most people's minds. The most important thing to be is normal. To fit within the accepted limits of behaviour

That is what I got from the article you posted. The main thrust of it was, 'They aren't like us; the good, the true, the hard working. They don't belong'.

That's one of my biggest problems. I'll never belong. And as long as I don't belong, to my mind, there's no point in working. Or for that matter, hoping.

To many people, I'm a welfare bum and completely beneath their consideration.

 

[shereads]

I'm not going to disagree with you sher, but in fairness, Mississippi dosen't have an economic center the size of New Orleans. The gaming industry on the coast is a staggering blow to the tax revenues of this state, not to mention the commercial seafood industry lost, plus the cruiselines that left from gulport and the tourism (admittedly gaming related). This falling on the heels of the announced closing of the meridian naval air station. It's every bit as staggering a setback as looseing New orleans is to La. Perhaps more so, because we won't be seeeing the lion's share of the dollars allocated by congress to rebuild even though we took the brunt of the storm while La. as a state, got off pretty lightly in comparrison.

My point was not that Louisiana's losses are more tragic than the other states, but that its governor faced a uniquely intimidating catastrophe last week, sufficient to have merited those federally sponsored studies that are now just wasted software. The size and relative poverty of New Orleans' population, and the geography of the city itself, assured that huge numbers of people wouldn't evacuate before the storm; wouldn't be able to escape from the toxic aftermath without a massive, coordinated relief effort far beyond the capabilities of any one state; and wouldn't be able to return for an indefinite amount of time afterwards.

The coastal areas of Mississippi and Alabama were threatened with a catastrophic tidal surge, which does its damage and then goes away, leaving at least the possibility that people can live in tents in their front yards as some are doing. (Please don't think I'm suggesting that that's a good thing for the survivors; it's simply part of the argument that the homeless in those states won't all have to be relocated.) The flooding in New Orleans wasn't going to go away. It was going to fester into a poisonous soup. The state of Louisiana knew that when it fought to fund the levee project; the governor knew that when she called for federal assistance on Friday. The feds knew it too. If they didn't, I'd love to know why.

Harold was asking why someone assumed there was a political purpose behind Bush's having singled out two of the three governors for praise in how they handled their crises last week. I was suggesting that there was no reason except a political one to make such a comparison. And pointing out that the White House had already taken a shot at the governor of Louisiana when they told the Washington Post that she didn't make the necessary calls to put federal help in motion until Saturday. She called before the others did, on Friday.

Let's face it - even if all three governors had panicked on Friday and run screaming through the streets wearing nothing but feather boas, FEMA can't be defended by claiming that anyone - from the Mayor of New Orleans on up - failed to deliver a timely request through the proper channels. We were all watching the thing on TV, for God's sake. Anyone but the most numb-witted bureaucrat would have been on the phone saying, "It looks like this might be the big one; what do you need from us?"

Even the FEMA director can't be blamed for doing what there was no plan to do. The fact that there was no plan for evacuating the population of a major city, and that there is no long-term plan for their relocation, makes me wonder what progress has been made toward doing what the president claimed four years ago was his number-one job: protecting the American people. (As opposed to the job he swears to do when he takes office, which is to preserve and protect the constitution.)

His supporters can't have it both ways. Bush is either the guardian of our safety, in which case he's done a damn poor job; or he is the protector of the constitution, in which case he's done a damn poor job. For him to conduct his own investigation of this fiasco is a bit like my dog conducting an investigation of who peed on the dining room rug.

 

[thebullet]

Dr M wrote:
welfare dependency also explains why Finns are such notorious rioters and looters too.

Yeah, I hate those damn Finns.

Colleen Thomas wrote:
I expect an unreasonable holier than thou reaction from the bullet.

Holier than many, Colleen, but certainly not holier than thou.

I'm surprised that the article you posted didn't turn your stomach, but you stated in your post that it didn't necessarily represent your views. Why do you take it as a personal insult, then, that I found the article repulsive? As usual, the conservative response is: blame the victims.

I didn't insult you, and yet you felt the need to insult me.

"This is America; pull yourself up by your bootstraps." What arrogant bullshit!

There are plenty of studies showing that all of these welfare states that Amicus so dispises are far more upwardly mobil than the good ole USA. Generally, if you are born in poverty, in poverty you shall remain. And the neoCon philosophy of steal from the poor and give to the rich is making that fact doubly true.

Oh well.

 

[shereads]

The one thing that in the article dr_m posted that stood out for me was the assumption that Americans were more individualistic than the Finns.

This, in my opinion, is no more that chauvinism on the authour's part. I see few signs that this is the case. Group think is a human trait, not a Finnish one.

Colleen, I was raised by the same sort of people as you. And what I learned was the exact opposite lesson. I learned that hard work and intelligence are actually fairly secondary considerations in most people's minds. The most important thing to be is normal. To fit within the accepted limits of behaviour

That is what I got from the article you posted. The main thrust of it was, 'They aren't like us; the good, the true, the hard working. They don't belong'.

That's one of my biggest problems. I'll never belong. And as long as I don't belong, to my mind, there's no point in working. Or for that matter, hoping.

What you take from society is no more than you would be willing to give, if you saw someone in need, Rob. The fact that some people abuse public assistance programs doesn't mean the programs shouldn't exist, or that people who need them should be dehumanized for agreeing to be helped to survive.

I hope you know that the word "welfare" isn't universally a synonym for "a free ride for people who prefer not to work."

I'd like to recommend that you get a copy of Garrison Keillor's book, "Homegrown Democrat." There is a chapter that gets to the heart of the issue of social spending as something necessary to the conscience of a civilized society.

Society is a family that has outgrown the ability to request and receive individual help when it's needed. Just as it pools its resources to defend itself from outsiders, it contributes to a fund that is there for each of us, should we find ourselves in need.

Keillor is a wealthy man, but to illustrate his point he talks about the day his daughter suddenly fell ill and that he was helpless to save her life - He couldn't think straight; he couldn't have driven her to the hospital; had he lived in a nearby town that had lower taxes and fewer social services, he'd have waited up to 45 minutes for an ambulance to arrive, instead of 5 minutes for the paramedics who saved his child.

He could afford to pay for the ambulance service, after the fact; but on his own, he could not have kept a staff of well-equipped paramedics always available to his family on 5 minutes' notice.

My father's generation didn't refuse what help was available to survive the Depression. They didn't refuse to take advantage of the G.I Bill that made prosperous lives possible for men returning from WWII. Everyone here, even amicus, uses highways built on public money. Dick Cheney's pacemaker was developed with a government subsidy, and I'll bet he didn't insist on paying more for his, so that taxpayers could be reimbursed.

We are all using public assistance. We are all on welfare. It's a matter of degree. Not all of us need it full-time to survive, but I came close a few years ago to a point where I wasn't able to function at the office and wouldn't have been able to hide my breakdown much longer. I got lucky and got well enough to save my job, but I can't stand in judgement of anyone who hasn't been that lucky.

I will never assume that everyone on welfare is lazy, anymore than I will assume that people living in poverty don't work for a living.

Consider the alternative to welfare. A society with no safety net for people who fall on hard times would have children begging in the streets. It's easy to say that Americans would be so generous, none of those children would go hungry. But I'd hate to live in a country that's willing to let something so essential hang on whether the rich are feeling generous that day.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

What really is so disheartening to me is you didn't even pause to consider where they might be coming from, which is all i was trying to point out. You just reacted, fairly virulently to the article. there is really no wonder to me this country is so polarized, when people of tremendous intellect like yourself go straight into attack mode when confronted by something from the other side of the asile. It's especially troubling when you realize there canbe no comrpomise when otherwise reasonable and rational people react in such a way.

Oh no. I paused to consider where this author is coming from. He's coming from prejudice and bigotry. He's coming from lumping all people together and generalizing and castigating them. He's coming from the same place everyone comes from when they judge a group based on the worst examples--Jews as bloodsuckers, Italians as Gangsters, American Indians as drunks, Catholics as sheep. I know exactly where he's coming from. Hitler came from there, and Father Coughlin, and Governor Faubus and a lot other unsavory people.

I'm sorry, Colly. I like you and I would never think to insult you or your parents, but I'm shocked that you can't see the blatant racism and ignorance and even hatred in this article. I'm shocked as hell that you even posted it, even just for discussion's sake. It's as if you posted something from George Lincoln Rockwell. Even David Duke has more finesse than this guy.

I believe in letting everyone have their own opinions, but some opinions are just wrong. And people who believe this guy's appeal to racism are wrong, wrong, wrong.

You know, if you want to talk about what welfare does to people, or who's on it, that's one thing. But to smear people with their own misfortune with such a shoddy argument is just unconscionable. And the fact that anyone can give any sort of credence to this is just unimaginable to me. It's right down there with the Elders Of Zion and the Pope's Legions of Mindless Catholics crap.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Oh no. I paused to consider where this author is coming from. He's coming from prejudice and bigotry. He's coming from lumping all people together and generalizing and castigating them. He's coming from the same place everyone comes from when they judge a group based on the worst examples--Jews as bloodsuckers, Italians as Gangsters, American Indians as drunks, Catholics as sheep. I know exactly where he's coming from. Hitler came from there, and Father Coughlin, and Governor Faubus and a lot other unsavory people.

I'm sorry, Colly. I like you and I would never think to insult you or your parents, but I'm shocked that you can't see the blatant racism and ignorance and even hatred in this article. I'm shocked as hell that you even posted it, even just for discussion's sake. It's as if you posted something from George Lincoln Rockwell. Even David Duke has more finesse than this guy.

I believe in letting everyone have their own opinions, but some opinions are just wrong. And people who believe this guy's appeal to racism are wrong, wrong, wrong.

You know, if you want to talk about what welfare does to people, or who's on it, that's one thing. But to smear people with their own misfortune with such a shoddy argument is just unconscionable. And the fact that anyone can give any sort of credence to this is just unimaginable to me. It's right down there with the Elders Of Zion and the Pope's Legions of Mindless Catholics crap.

Doc, before replying to this, I reread the article carefully. At no point, does the author mention race, That I can see.

By calling it racist, you are making your own inference on his intention, based on your own assumptions.

I believe Coture pointed out he's a randyn. Rynd's objectivism is not inherently racist. In fact, some psychologists speculate her view demanding objective measures and rational thought and action are a direct backlash to the anti-semitism she witnessed as a child.

The object of his scorn isn't a race, nor even a class, nor even people really. He is taking this opportuinty to lash out at one of Ryndist's favorite bogie men, a welfare state. He dosen't blame people, he blames a government policy. One he violently disagrees with.

You're casting it as racist, because your working assumptions on the basics of life don't follow his. It strikes a chord with folks of my parent's generation, because it is attacking something they can't fathom, not working when you are able.

It seems odd to me, that you just don't seem to be willing to even question what assumptions lead to this article. You are just painting your own inferences over it and going on. We're using the same words, but we aren't speaking the same language.

You're ripping the article. I'm trying to say left & right can't seem to find common ground because we aren't working from the same assumptions. If we continue to demonize one another because we don't reach conclusions the other finds reasonable, it may well be because we start from vantage points and use points of reference we think of as universal, when in fact, they are assumptions that have as much to do with upbringing as they do with their universiality or truthfulness.

Am I failing utterly to get the point I am trying to make across?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

My point was not that Louisiana's losses are more tragic than the other states, but that its governor faced a uniquely intimidating catastrophe last week, sufficient to have merited those federally sponsored studies that are now just wasted software. The size and relative poverty of New Orleans' population, and the geography of the city itself, assured that huge numbers of people wouldn't evacuate before the storm; wouldn't be able to escape from the toxic aftermath without a massive, coordinated relief effort far beyond the capabilities of any one state; and wouldn't be able to return for an indefinite amount of time afterwards.

The coastal areas of Mississippi and Alabama were threatened with a catastrophic tidal surge, which does its damage and then goes away, leaving at least the possibility that people can live in tents in their front yards as some are doing. (Please don't think I'm suggesting that that's a good thing for the survivors; it's simply part of the argument that the homeless in those states won't all have to be relocated.) The flooding in New Orleans wasn't going to go away. It was going to fester into a poisonous soup. The state of Louisiana knew that when it fought to fund the levee project; the governor knew that when she called for federal assistance on Friday. The feds knew it too. If they didn't, I'd love to know why.

Harold was asking why someone assumed there was a political purpose behind Bush's having singled out two of the three governors for praise in how they handled their crises last week. I was suggesting that there was no reason except a political one to make such a comparison. And pointing out that the White House had already taken a shot at the governor of Louisiana when they told the Washington Post that she didn't make the necessary calls to put federal help in motion until Saturday. She called before the others did, on Friday.

Let's face it - even if all three governors had panicked on Friday and run screaming through the streets wearing nothing but feather boas, FEMA can't be defended by claiming that anyone - from the Mayor of New Orleans on up - failed to deliver a timely request through the proper channels. We were all watching the thing on TV, for God's sake. Anyone but the most numb-witted bureaucrat would have been on the phone saying, "It looks like this might be the big one; what do you need from us?"

Even the FEMA director can't be blamed for doing what there was no plan to do. The fact that there was no plan for evacuating the population of a major city, and that there is no long-term plan for their relocation, makes me wonder what progress has been made toward doing what the president claimed four years ago was his number-one job: protecting the American people. (As opposed to the job he swears to do when he takes office, which is to preserve and protect the constitution.)

His supporters can't have it both ways. Bush is either the guardian of our safety, in which case he's done a damn poor job; or he is the protector of the constitution, in which case he's done a damn poor job. For him to conduct his own investigation of this fiasco is a bit like my dog conducting an investigation of who peed on the dining room rug.

Don't mind me, I just feel a little angry that New Orleans is getting such attention when the Gulf Coast is getting so little. We got hurt really badly, and it seems like it's getting very little consideration because we aren't as newsworthy as New Orleans.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm trying to say left & right can't seem to find common ground because we aren't working from the same assumptions. If we continue to demonize one another because we don't reach conclusions the other finds reasonable, it may well be because we start from vantage points and use points of reference we think of as universal, when in fact, they are assumptions that have as much to do with upbringing as they do with their universiality or truthfulness.

Am I failing utterly to get the point I am trying to make across?

Colleen, I knew you were just pointing out that there are other points of view, one that some people you know subscribe to.

I hope you didn't take my attack of your article as a personal thing. It was the quite heartless assumptions of the article I took exception to.

And I don't think you're quite correct in saying people on the left and right aren't working from the same assumptions. We all want the best possible deal for everybody. And we would like people to be rewarded for their goodness, their competence and nothing else.

We just have slightly different views on how that should work.

But we do want the same thing.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Don't mind me, I just feel a little angry that New Orleans is getting such attention when the Gulf Coast is getting so little. We got hurt really badly, and it seems like it's getting very little consideration because we aren't as newsworthy as New Orleans.

Other parts of Louisiana aren't getting much coverage either. One of my friends is also angry because her family and many of her friends lost everything in the hurricane, but all anyone talks about is NO. She's afraid they aren't going to get the help they need until long after everyone in NO, which is actually what's been happening. Her people are scattered all over the place staying with others, so they are not in danger, but they honestly are at a loss as to what to do now and how long they can rely on their friends to house them.

 

[Weird Harold]

Harold was asking why someone assumed there was a political purpose behind Bush's having singled out two of the three governors for praise in how they handled their crises last week. I was suggesting that there was no reason except a political one to make such a comparison. And pointing out that the White House had already taken a shot at the governor of Louisiana when they told the Washington Post that she didn't make the necessary calls to put federal help in motion until Saturday. She called before the others did, on Friday.

Let's face it - even if all three governors had panicked on Friday and run screaming through the streets wearing nothing but feather boas, FEMA can't be defended by claiming that anyone - from the Mayor of New Orleans on up - failed to deliver a timely request through the proper channels. We were all watching the thing on TV, for God's sake. Anyone but the most numb-witted bureaucrat would have been on the phone saying, "It looks like this might be the big one; what do you need from us?"

Shereads, does the smearing and finger pointing change any of the facts that the response -- at least according to the media -- was screwed up in Louisaina and not in the other two states?

Yes, Gov Blanco DID request a disaster declaration early. Did she or her office of homeland security and disaster preparedness make use of what the disaster declaration made available to them?

Is TV to be considered "proper channels?" FWIW, if I was running a disaster control co-ordination enter, I'd be seriously upset with anyone watching television instead of doing their job.

As Colly and Sophia Jane point out, if the disaster response relied on the media for information, there would be no relief sent anywhere except for New Orleans -- where he Louisiana National Guard and the Lousiana Depaprtment of Wildlife and Fisheries seem determined to turn everyone except reporters away; probably because they also are too busy to watch TV and know what is needed.


As it it is, an inordinate amount of attention is centered on the tragedy in New Orleans by the media and relief efforts all over the 90,000 square miles of disaster area are being affected.

Just as an exercise in determining what's going on, compare these two links:

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=8036
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=8034

The first is a first hand account attributed to: "Jason Robideaux, I am an attorney from Lafayette Louisiana and have dealt with all of the various law enforcement agencies in Louisiana during the past 18 years."

The second is the same story without the attribution, but with the phrase "FEMA controlled" inserted before every reference to the La DWF.

Which link do you think describe the incident the most accurately?

PS: Which link indulges in political finger pointing and which just asks "who is responsible?"

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen, I knew you were just pointing out that there are other points of view, one that some people you know subscribe to.

I hope you didn't take my attack of your article as a personal thing. It was the quite heartless assumptions of the article I took exception to.

And I don't think you're quite correct in saying people on the left and right aren't working from the same assumptions. We all want the best possible deal for everybody. And we would like people to be rewarded for their goodness, their competence and nothing else.

We just have slightly different views on how that should work.

But we do want the same thing.

Rob,
I didn't take anything personally. I'm just disheartened to see that compromise is really out of the question.

But...

We can not live forever as two halves of the same nation at loggerheads. One day, someone, from the right or left, is going to have to take that huge step into the unthinkable and try to figure out how good people, with good hearts and good intentions, can both start at the same point and end up so far apart. And when he or she does, I think they will discover, that the reason is because the sign posts along the way are far different.

When that daring person does, he or she will then have to wait there, in that noman's land, on the backroads crossroads and wait until some daring idividual from the other side also makes the same journey.

Once we ar eboth there, you Mr. Arch Liberal and I Mrs. Arch Conservative will have to find a way to talk.

And when it comes to welfare arch conservatives, will never rest till it's gone. And arch liberals will never allow it to be destroyed. But when you travel down my roads, you will see the signs clearly pointing out, the system isn't fostering independance, it's self perpetuating. And I, traveling down your road will see the signs clearly pointing out that bad things happen and people need help and the only entity with the reach and power to interceede is the government.

From there, perhaps I will say we need more vocational and technical education with less emphasis on college. A mechanic isn't the best job in the world, but it beats a Mcjob with aliberal arts degree that isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Perhaps you will say the program isn't ill concieved, but is drastically underfunded and under policed.

And while we try to hash this out, perhaps an inquisitive conservative will wander out to no man's land to see what we are up to. And maybe a liberal couple will join us, because they are tired of the shouting and seizing of the moral high ground on both sides. And maybe, between us all, we can come up with reforms that aren't me selling out to you or you selling out to me. But a synthesis of the ideas I have you can see merit in and the ideas you have I can see merit in.

And maybe, just maybe, when we both leave no man's land and get back on our own comfortable state road, the signs will be less divergent. Perhaps, over the next rise, we can meet again and look for answers as you travel my road and I travel yours, if only to see how you got there and I got there.

But as long as you jump to the conclusion my saying welfare isn't working means I want to destroy it. And as long as I see you saying people need help isn't a starting place but your end result. You will continue to shout racist and I will continue to shout bleeding heart and we will both seize our percived moral high ground, and nothing will get done as millions are wasted and thousands go down the drain.

It has to happen someday.

P.S. Doc, I am sorry I posted something that offended you. It wasn't my intent. You know I think the world of you and respect you greatly. You have always been gracious to me and helpful. I apologize sincerely for upseting you.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . It's unfortunate that there isn't a country we can invade to make sure this never happens again. Bush needs fall guys. He'd prefer foreign ones, but you take what you can get.

Should we blame the government?

Or blame society?

Or should we blame the images on TV?


No, blame Canada

Blame Canada!​

Canadians beat U.S. Army to New Orleans suburb

Reuters
08 Sep 2005

BATON ROUGE, La., Sept 7 (Reuters) - A Canadian search-and-rescue team reached a flooded New Orleans suburb to help save trapped residents five days before the U.S. military, a Louisiana state senator said on Wednesday.

The Canadians beat both the Army and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. disaster response department, to St. Bernard Parish east of New Orleans, where flood waters are still 8 feet (2.4 metres) deep in places, Sen. Walter Boasso said.

"Fabulous, fabulous guys," Boasso said. "They started rolling with us and got in boats to save people."

"We've got Canadian flags flying everywhere."

The stricken parish of 68,000 people was largely ignored by U.S. authorities who scrambled to get aid to New Orleans, a few miles (km) away. Boasso said residents of the outlying parishes had to mount their own rescue and relief efforts when Hurricane Katrina roared ashore on Aug. 29.

The U.S. government response to the disaster has been widely criticized. Politicians and editorial writers have called for the resignation of top Bush administration officials.

Boasso said U.S. authorities began airdropping relief supplies to St. Bernard last Wednesday, the same day the Canadian rescue team of about 50 members arrived from Vancouver, nearly 2,200 miles (3,540 km) away.

"They chartered a plane and flew down," he said.

Two FEMA officials reached the parish on Sunday and the U.S. Army arrived on Monday, he said.

"Why does it take them seven days to get the Army in?" Boasso asked.

He speculated that the smaller parishes suffered because the focus was on New Orleans, the famous home of jazz and Mardi Gras.

As for the Canadians, Boasso gave thanks for their quick work.

"They were so glad to be here," he said. "They're still here. They are actually going door-to-door looking in the attics" for people to rescue, he said.

 

[shereads]

Don't mind me, I just feel a little angry that New Orleans is getting such attention when the Gulf Coast is getting so little. We got hurt really badly, and it seems like it's getting very little consideration because we aren't as newsworthy as New Orleans.

As awful as this sounds, isn't it possible that the unique nature of what happened in New Orleans will end up benefiting the other areas in a way? Donations to relief agencies have broken every record in the U.S. If New Orleans made people call the Red Cross, that doesn't change the fact that the donation was for Hurricane Katrina, not New Orleans. When the novelty wears off and the agencies involved get down to the business of distributing resources by whatever formula they each use, the amount of attention New Orleans got this week might end up being all for the good.

We are becoming used to the sight of televised disasters. The fires in California two years ago, tornados every year, Florida's four hurricanes last summer, the tsunami that seemed so unreal in December. Looking at flattened houses on the Gulf coast, which look like flattened houses in Vero Beach last year, and in the tornado zones every year, it's hard for people who aren't there to comprehend that it's bigger this time, because it's happened to every single town on a 90-mile stretch of coastline. The scope of the damage doesn't fit in the frame.

New Orleans, on the other hand, is something we haven't seen before and that scares the hell out of us no matter what part of the country we live in: a metropolis that most of us have either visited or would have liked to, or were familiar with because of TV sports and Mardi Gras and books and movies and song titles and Creole food. On 9/11 we had a taste of what it's like to see a major U.S. city made vulnerable. Last week we saw one disappear altogether.

I know it must be frustrating to see more attention going there when the tragedy is felt as deeply elsewhere as in New Orleans and may ultimately affect as many people. But would people take this much notice if New Orleans hadn't happened?

Maybe the issue isn't which disaster area is getting the attention, but whether the resources will be used fairly over the next months and years.

Who determines the value of a flooded business in Florida that's one of only a few destroyed last week, versus one in Biloxi that was essential to its community, versus one in downtown New Orleans that gets more media coverage because the sight of a whole city underwater is so new and strange? If FEMA feels pressured by public opinion to fix New Orleans, there will be tugs in the other direction based on political loyalties and the personal involvement of someone as highly placed as Trent Lott. If there's any good reason for a politician to twist arms and work deals and call in favors, it should be making sure his own community doesn't get screwed.

However FEMA and co. decide which resources go where, I doubt that reputable charities like the Red Cross will be subject to the same influences.

I hope.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Rob,

P.S. Doc, I am sorry I posted something that offended you. It wasn't my intent. You know I think the world of you and respect you greatly. You have always been gracious to me and helpful. I apologize sincerely for upseting you.

I feel bad too, Colly. And I apologize if I kind of flew off the handle there. I had no intention of hurting your feelings. I think the world of you.

(But I'm right, you know )

--Zoot