![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
In an emergency, people like to find targets to blame. This is especially true in a natural disaster, since it's not very emotionally satisfying to blame a hurricane. And it doesn't feel very sympathetic to alot responsibility to people who decided to stay in a city after an evacuation order was placed.
I'm willing to believe that the government may have been inefficient or incompetent in getting relief to New Orleans - after all, it is the government, and inefficiency is their business. On the other hand, such accusations have a big task ahead of them. They need to show how things could have obviously been done better, but weren't - not due to lack of information or honest error during a monumental cataclysm, but due to incompetence. They should also show appreciation of the problem itself, that of providing emergency supplies and transportation to multiple thousands of victims, in a flooded and wrecked city, while criminals are physically attacking rescue attempts.
In other words, it's not exactly a cakewalk. Could you organize a rescue and relief operation of this scale? Do you even know the factors and difficulties involved? Do you have any grasp of the scope of the task, or how to coordinate it, or truly how to evaluate its execution? I'll be honest - I don't. I can't even organize a party. And therefore, I am very slow to start placing blame on the government for not responding fast enough, or well enough. (I am willing to say that the government shouldn't be in the disaster relief business in the first place, but that's a different issue.)
Obviously relief is coming slower than the victims of the hurricane would like. But what they'd like is instant and total relief, which probably isn't possible. The question is if relief is coming slower than it reasonably could have, given the limits of human knowledge, and extremely difficult circumstances. And unless you have a basis for knowing what that is, maybe you should keep the finger of blame sheathed for the time being.
September 2 2005, 17:56:02 UTC 6 years ago
I heard the system was designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane. How come over the last 50 years (or however long its been since the levees were built) nobody in a position of power thought to ask, "We know larger hurricanes occur. What happens when one of them hits?"
September 2 2005, 19:52:28 UTC 6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
Anonymous
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
September 2 2005, 17:57:10 UTC 6 years ago
September 2 2005, 18:20:31 UTC 6 years ago
Most of the people stuck there just want to get out, and have food, water, and shelter. The bands of thugs roaming the street are a minority who are terrorizing the weak and helpless. It's certainly understandable for those weak and helpless terror victims to complain. (Although I agree with
6 years ago
September 2 2005, 17:58:11 UTC 6 years ago
September 2 2005, 17:58:32 UTC 6 years ago
...I wish I could say I made that up, but there are actually people batting that theory around out there.
Mad conspiracies aside, it is indeed a huge mess that requires hard work and dedication for the short term, not finger-pointing. For the long term, I hope the good city of NOLA will at least rebuild on higher ground, since the majority of the inefficiency was having stuff built in a very vulnerable spot. Or at least I hope they build better levees. Or something.
September 2 2005, 21:08:31 UTC 6 years ago
Nevertheless, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that part of the reason this hurricane was so devastating is because of the ways in which the global environment has been damaged in the last 20-30 years, and particiularly in the gulf of Mexico.
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
September 2 2005, 18:01:20 UTC 6 years ago
I am also not sure that they should be rebuilding New Orleans instead of moving it 90 miles up river.
I lived in Houston for many years, we had our fair share of Hurricanes, Tropical Storms, ice storms, severe weather, and massive floods. Without fail, they would rebuild in the same spot only to have it blown away again and again. If that is a lifestyle you enjoy then fund it yourself.
PS. In choosing my living location, I have elected to accept the consequences if CA should fall off in an earthquake or mudslide.
September 2 2005, 18:14:01 UTC 6 years ago
Interestingly, there are 300 people holed up at the Ritz Carlton - white and rich - who could not leave the city. They are being rationed to a cookie and a glass of water per day.
Did you really mean it when you said, "I am not even sure that a rescue should be happening."? I have difficulty understanding this attitude.
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
September 2 2005, 18:04:12 UTC 6 years ago
To my completely untrained eye, the magnitude of the difficulty is much worse than the situations people have been comparing it to (9/11, the tsunami, other hurricanes). It's not like other situations, where once the storm was over or the tsunami waters receded, rescue people could just move right in and get to work.
I am still having trouble getting my jaw to remain undropped with all the people saying stuff like "the government has let us down! you've failed us!" (in Buff's journal, too, which is particularly ironic). I think it was ridiculous of them to expect much help from the government in the first place.
September 2 2005, 18:15:01 UTC 6 years ago
Katrina, in comparison, permitted all but the poor, infirm, naive, and stubborn to evacuate. I think that the spirit of independence and self-reliance would be much less, if they lacked it pre-Katrina. I wonder how many of those who are left were on public assistance beforehand. I don't mean to sound elitist, but the danger with public assistance is coming to rely upon it, and making contingencies if it disappears.
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
September 2 2005, 18:10:08 UTC 6 years ago
September 3 2005, 07:56:53 UTC 6 years ago
September 2 2005, 18:16:44 UTC 6 years ago
I have a Public Policy Masters degree, thus could be a certified ineffective government worker myself if I hadn't gotten bored to tears with the job after four years. Does that qualify me to have an opinion? Dunno.
Anyway -- I think a lot of the bungling we're seeing is due to the relatively recent reorg of many agencies under a Homeland Security umbrella. The lines of accountability are still unclear. That's point number 1. Was the reorganization necessary? Personally, I don't think so.
Point # 2 -- this particular disaster scenario was predicted by lots of people beforehand, some of them on the government payroll & some of them not. At least one of them on the government payroll -- former head of the Corps of Army Engineers -- was "resigned" in 2002 for speaking out publicly against budget cuts that undermined levee upgrades. (Presumably those budget cuts were part of the cost shifting used to fund our military exercises in Iraq.) Do I think THAT could have been prevented? You betcha.
September 2 2005, 18:28:44 UTC 6 years ago
As I'm going to elaborate upon later, in my opinion the response to this disaster has been terrific. There was only one contingency that was NOT accounted for adequately, and that was the complete breakdown of order. As responders, we bug out if the scene is not safe. Once law enforcement gives us the go-ahead, only THEN will we return.
6 years ago
6 years ago
September 2 2005, 18:27:20 UTC 6 years ago
I believe that a taskforce should have been set up immediately to provide aid to refugees, while Bush and his advisors made longer-term arrangements. I am sickened that two babies have died of dehydration at an official evacuation point. I am completely stunned that it hasn't been possible for more water, food and diapers to be delivered by air from neighbouring states. I understand that this has been complicated by people shooting at rescue helicopters, but these are very isolated events and do not represent the majority.
Bush is not to blame for the hurricane. He's not single-handedly to blame for the slow response times either. I agree that we need to stop blaming people and get on with the job, because there are people in attics with water up to their necks who can't hold out much longer... but I also believe that we have a right to be angry about the conditions that these people have been left in.
The hurricane's widespread destruction was a very real possibility for a couple of days before it hit. The government, charities and the private sector have had almost a week to organise support for a city full of people that we knew would be displaced. Is this the best we could do?
September 2 2005, 20:01:09 UTC 6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
September 2 2005, 19:58:29 UTC 6 years ago
"Government's only true function is to pick up trash, provide basic things like fresh water, and to keep order. They're 0 for 3 in this case."
And of course I couldn't plan a large-scale disaster relief effort. I work at a record label, for chrissakes. The people who work in the government and their associates in organizations like the Army Corps of Engineers have studied stuff like this for years and know much more about planning an executing an operation of this magnitude than I do. So saying "could you do this?" really isn't much of a question, is it.
September 2 2005, 20:06:41 UTC 6 years ago
As I said, I'm willing to believe the government screwed up - in fact, I think government screwups in disaster relief are inevitable, because Uncle Sam has no real incentive to do a good job. But this assessment can only be made if one knows the factors involved in organizing a massive relief effort on this scale. Nobody in the universe has had field training in efficiently rescuing a flooded, devestated city, where movement is incredibly restricted and civilian rescuers are the target of gunfire. Every large job involves guesswork, and this is a job of an unprecedented scale.
Again, not impossible that Uncle Sam is screwing up. But there's a difference between an informed criticism and the kind of childish accusations that seem to be flowing around the internet.
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
September 2 2005, 20:27:22 UTC 6 years ago
Free market operations would almost certainly not have allowed NO to keep expanding. Insurance rates would have been much too high.
Notwithstanding that rather evasive reply, the prohibition of 'price gouging' prevents any entrepreneurs from even attempting a solution. Any attempt to evacuate or provision people for profit would be deemed evil. Since people will always work harder and think harder and take larger risks for money than for charity; some solutions will probably not be tried.
If Bush wanted to actually help instead of justifying another federal boondoggle he would give the nation a lecture on basic economics and encourage free enterprise. Instead he is forbidding free enterprise by threatening 'gougers'.
September 2 2005, 20:29:39 UTC 6 years ago
September 2 2005, 20:30:51 UTC 6 years ago
Guns for the poor
Has anyone thought of what it would take to get guns into the hands of the helpless victims and potential victims in New Orleans? I imagine a gun drive, collecting gun donations around the country, and money to buy guns as well, and then distributing the guns to the unarmed, vulnerables in the city. It might be too late to execute this, but I've been pinging different people to see about that.It would be a great opportunity to highlight the fact that the government is unable to protect you when disaster strikes (if ever), and that people ultimately need the basic means of defending themselves and their property. Trusting the police in circumstances like this is foolish, and it would be a great way to get the message out to the American public - and save lives in the city.
September 2 2005, 21:48:35 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Guns for the poor
I think introducing guns into a volatile environment would be a disaster. The guns already seem to be in the wrong hands.I like the symbolism of it, I just think that it'd be a bloodbath.
September 2 2005, 21:09:47 UTC 6 years ago
also, this:
required reading for you:http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/20
September 3 2005, 02:38:20 UTC 6 years ago
September 3 2005, 22:07:44 UTC 6 years ago
September 9 2005, 10:14:31 UTC 6 years ago
6 years ago