Max, that's a hell of a read. I think the anger at the Federal response is justified, and it is widespread throughout the country. Our government should have done better. Our government must do better. What is more fundamental to the office of the President than to protect the American people, and to succor them in their hour of need. They were failed, and are still being failed, by the President and his administration. Harry Truman put it so well with the sign on his desk... the buck stops here. Keep D&D Civil!!
While I was interning this summer in Garyville, (20 mins from NOLA), the refinery used the following website (www.wunderground.com) along with a couple others to monitor hurricanes that could potentially make landfall in NOLA. The creator of wunderground.com has a blog and made the following post today: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html In comments on Thursday, Sep. 1, in an interview with Diane Sawyer of ABC News, President George W. Bush said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached." In comments to the press on Sep. 3, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff remarked, "That 'perfect storm' of a combination of catastrophes exceeded the foresight of the planners, and maybe anybody's foresight", and called the disaster "breathtaking in its surprise." It's not our fault," said Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, in charge of the deployment of National Guard troops in New Orleans. "The storm came and flooded the city." In other words, Katrina was an Act of God no one could have foreseen, and the politicians we elected to protect us from disaster are not responsible for the unimaginable horror we have witnessed this week. A horror unimagined by anyone, except by every hurricane scientist and government emergency management official for the past forty years and more. It was a certainty that New Orleans would suffer a catastrophe like this. Every 70 years, on average, the central Gulf Coast has a Category 4 or 5 hurricane pass within 80 miles of a given point. Sometimes you get lucky--for a while. New Orleans had gone over 150 years without a strike by a hurricane capable of overwhelming the levees. Sometimes you get unlucky. There's no guarantee that New Orleans won't get hit by another major hurricane this year. We are in the midst of an extraordinary period of hurricane activity, the likes of which has not been seen in recorded history. Hurricanes Ivan and Dennis, which both had storm surges capable of breaching the levees in New Orleans, smashed into Pensacola in the past year. Either of these storms could have destroyed New Orleans, had they taken a slight wobble westward earlier in their track. Hurricanes are an inescapable part of nature's way on the Gulf Coast. Nature doesn't care about tax cuts and fiscal years and budget crunches. Nature doesn't care that a city of 500,000 people situated below sea level lies in its path. It was certain that New Orleans would sooner or later get hit by a hurricane that would breach the levees. How could the director of Homeland Security not be familiar with this huge threat to the security of this nation? How could the President not know? How could all the presidents and politicians we elected, from Eisenhower to Clinton, not know? The answer is that they all knew. But the politicians we elect don't care about the poor people in New Orleans, because poor people don't have a lobbyist in Washington. The poor people don't make big campaign contributions, and those big campaign contributions are vital to getting elected. In all of the Congressional and Presidential races held over the past ten years, over 90% were won by the candidate that raised the most money. So there was little effort given to formulate a plan to evacuate the 100,000 poor residents of New Orleans with no transportation of their own for a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. To do so would have cost tens of millions of dollars, money that neither the city, nor the state, nor the federal government was willing to spend. Why spend money that would be wasted on a bunch of poor people? The money was better spent on projects to please the politicians' wealthy campaign contributors. So the plan was to let them die. And they died, as we experts all knew they would. Huge numbers of them. And they keep dying, still. We don't know how many. Since the plan was to let them die, the city of New Orleans made sure they had a good supply of body bags on hand. Only 10,000 body bags, but since Katrina didn't hit New Orleans head-on, 10,000 will probably be enough. Admittedly, it is very difficult to safely evacuate 100,000 people with a Category 4 or 5 hurricane bearing down on you. There are only a few routes out of the city, and a full 72 hours of warning are needed to get everyone out. That's asking a lot, as hurricanes are very difficult to predict that far in advance. The National Hurricane Center did pretty well, giving New Orleans a full 60 hours to evacuate. The Hurricane Center forecasted on Friday afternoon that Katrina would hit New Orleans as a major hurricane on Monday, which is what happened. New Orleans had time to implement its plan to bus the city's poor out. However, this plan had two very serious problems--it wasn't enacted in time, and it could only get out 20% of the people in a best case scenario. The mandatory evacuation order was not given until Sunday, just 20 hours before the hurricane. I have not been able to ascertain from press accounts when the busses actually started picking up people. The mayor says 50,000 made it to the Superdome and other "shelters of last resort", leaving another 50,000 to face the flood waters in their homes. Although 80% of the city was evacuated, it is unclear whether any of the city's poor made it out by bus. And it is very fortunate that Katrina did not hit the city head-on, or else most of those in the Superdome and other "shelters of last resort" would have perished. The death toll from Katrina would have easily surpassed 50,000. Even if the evacuation plan had been launched 72 hours in advance, it almost certainly would have failed. A local New Orleans news station, nola.com, reported in 2002 on the evacuation plan thusly: In an evacuation, buses would be dispatched along their regular routes throughout the city to pick up people and go to the Superdome, which would be used as a staging area. From there, people would be taken out of the city to shelters to the north. Some experts familiar with the plans say they won't work. "That's never going to happen because there's not enough buses in the city," said Charley Ireland, who retired as deputy director of the New Orleans Office of Emergency Preparedness in 2000. "Between the RTA and the school buses, you've got maybe 500 buses, and they hold maybe 40 people each. It ain't going to happen." The plan has other potential pitfalls. No signs are in place to notify the public that the regular bus stops are also the stops for emergency evacuation. In Miami Beach, Fla., every other bus stop sports a huge sign identifying it as a hurricane evacuation stop. It's also unclear whether the city's entire staff of bus drivers will remain. A union spokesman said that while drivers are aware of the plan, the union contract lacks a provision requiring them to stay. So, if one does the math, 500 busses times 40 people per bus yields 20,000 people that could have been evacuated in a best-case scenario. Only 20,000 out of 100,000. That isn't a half-hearted effort, it's a one-fifth hearted, criminal effort. We're talking about the lives of 80,000 people or more sacrificed, from a disaster that was certain to happen. By not having a plan to get New Orleans' poor out, our government caused the unbelievable suffering and the needless deaths of thousands of Americans. This was not a natural disaster caused by an act of God, it was an unnatural disaster. In his excellent 2001 book, Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Natural Disaster in America, Ted Steinberg writes: "Calling such events acts of God has long been a way to evade moral responsibility for death and destruction." He shows in the book how countless politicians over the past one hundred years have done their best to evade this moral responsibility when preventable disasters struck. Our current leaders are no different. The most prosperous and technologically advanced nation in history surely could have done better. Was it really too expensive to have the vehicles, people, and workable plan in place needed to evacuate New Orleans? "A society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable", said George W. Bush in his State of the Union of Feb 2, 2005. By that measure, the people of this country have responded magnificently. The outpouring of aid, sympathy and prayers for those affected has been tremendous. But by that same standard, our government has failed. Its not just the current administration--every elected government since the days of Eisenhower has failed us. As I've outlined above, the problem is not likely to go away until the amount of money a candidate raises is no longer the primary factor determining who gets elected. Our elected officials won't care for the poor, as long as it is the rich who determine who get elected. What can we do to help prevent such a disaster from recurring? Well, I encourage all of you to support election reform initiatives such as public campaign financing and Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) over the coming years. Maybe then I can check a box to vote for a candidate who will actually care for the needs of the poor in New Orleans and elsewhere in this county, instead of the usual "lesser of two evils" from the miserable two-party system that let thousands die and tens of thousands more suffer so unbearably.
Defense of its citizens is JOB 1 for the federal government. No doubt about it. That's been trumpted by conservatives for as long as I can remember. No one should know it better than the current administration. I just feel that not all resources were used. That leadership didn't step up and act in a way that the situation warranted. The FEMA director does not deserve to be employed by our government, this morning, after the convention center fiasco. I am not at all confident in that agency's ability to respond to crisis...and that's very scary.
it is stunning that people can't just judge the situation through bush's body language. he clearly does not even care about those americans. i'm livid.
Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell in the early hours of the day. Deciphering body language is not a science, or neither an art.
he showed more solemn remorse talking about reinquist than the new orleans disaster. "new orleans will be better for it" - tell that to the people still stuck in their attics and roofs you a-hole. "i used to come down to bourbon street and get wasted when i was younger" "now im getting out of here in a minute, but i wont forget you"
Hey here is an idea........Lets stop watching CNN for a moment and actually think through this with some common sense! It's a natural disaster people, get over it. Yes its a terrible thing but it certainly is not Bush's fault. If you want to point the finger at somebody how about the Mayor of NO or the Governor of LA for their piss poor planning.
There is blame to go around, and nobody is willing to take it. Obviously the gov and mayor could have been more prepared. However, even if they were it wouldn't have been enough. Bush and FEMA deserve blame for not being responsive, being slow to act, and that costs lives. I understand that something of this huge nature is bound to cause problems, but right now everyone is patting themselves on the back praising the people doing the work when it has been done so poorly.
FEMA incompetence is a man-made disaster, not a natural disaster. <I>Three quick examples. We had Wal-Mart deliver three trucks of water. FEMA turned them back. They said we didn’t need them. This was a week ago. FEMA, we had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a Coast Guard vessel docked in my parish. When we got there with our trucks, FEMA says don’t give you the fuel. Yesterday -yesterday - FEMA comes in and cuts all of our emergency communication lines. They cut them without notice. Our sheriff, Harry Lee, goes back in, he reconnects the line. He posts armed guards and said no one is getting near these lines... </I> This is FEMA's jurisdiction - not the state. Not the city. Hundreds, if ot thousands of people, are dead directly due the incompetence of FEMA beginning on Monday and Tuesday.
"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!" George W. Bush praising the head of FEMA a day or so ago. The rot starts at the top. Keep D&D Civil!!
Why FEMA Was Missing in Action Most of the agency's preparedness budget and focus are related to terrorism, not disasters. By Peter G. Gosselin and Alan C. Miller, Times Staff Writers WASHINGTON — While the federal government has spent much of the last quarter-century trimming the safety nets it provides Americans, it has dramatically expanded its promise of protection in one area — disaster. Since the 1970s, Washington has emerged as the insurer of last resort against floods, fires, earthquakes and — after 2001 — terrorist attacks. But the government's stumbling response to the storm that devastated the nation's Gulf Coast reveals that the federal agency singularly most responsible for making good on Washington's expanded promise has been hobbled by cutbacks and a bureaucratic downgrading. The Federal Emergency Management Agency once speedily delivered food, water, shelter and medical care to disaster areas, and paid to quickly rebuild damaged roads and schools and get businesses and people back on their feet. Like a commercial insurance firm setting safety standards to prevent future problems, it also underwrote efforts to get cities and states to reduce risks ahead of time and plan for what they would do if calamity struck. But in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, FEMA lost its Cabinet-level status as it was folded into the giant new Department of Homeland Security. And in recent years it has suffered budget cuts, the elimination or reduction of key programs and an exodus of experienced staffers. The agency's core budget, which includes disaster preparedness and mitigation, has been cut each year since it was absorbed by the Homeland Security Department in 2003. Depending on what the final numbers end up being for next fiscal year, the cuts will have been between about 2% and 18%. The agency's staff has been reduced by 500 positions to 4,735. Among the results, FEMA has had to cut one of its three emergency management teams, which are charged with overseeing relief efforts in a disaster. Where it once had "red," "white" and "blue" teams, it now has only red and white. Three out of every four dollars the agency provides in local preparedness and first-responder grants go to terrorism-related activities, even though a recent Government Accountability Office report quotes local officials as saying what they really need is money to prepare for natural disasters and accidents. "They've taken emergency management away from the emergency managers," complained Morrie Goodman, who was FEMA's chief spokesman during the Clinton administration. "These operations are being run by people who are amateurs at what they are doing." Richard W. Krimm, a former senior FEMA official for several administrations, agreed. "It was a terrible mistake to take disaster response and recovery … and disaster preparedness and mitigation, and put them in Homeland Security," he said. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff acknowledged in interviews Sunday that Washington was insufficiently prepared for the hurricane that laid waste to New Orleans and surrounding areas. But he defended its performance by arguing that the size of the storm was beyond anything his department could have anticipated and that primary responsibility for handling emergencies rested with state and local, not federal, officials. "Before this happened, I said … we need to build a preparedness capacity going forward," Chertoff told NBC's "Meet the Press." He added that that was something "we have not yet succeeded in doing." Under the law, Chertoff said, state and local officials must direct initial emergency operations. "The federal government comes in and supports those officials," he said. Chertoff's remarks, which echoed earlier statements by President Bush, prompted withering rebukes both from former senior FEMA staffers and outside experts. "They can't do that," former agency chief of staff Jane Bullock said of Bush administration efforts to shift responsibility away from Washington. "The moment the president declared a federal disaster, it became a federal responsibility…. The federal government took ownership over the response," she said. Bush declared a disaster in Louisiana and Mississippi when the storm hit a week ago. "What's awe-inspiring here is how many federal officials didn't issue any orders," said Paul C. Light, an authority on government operations at New York University. Evidence of confusion extended beyond FEMA and the Homeland Security Department on Sunday. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said that conditions in New Orleans and elsewhere could quickly escalate into a major public health crisis. But asked whether his agency had dispatched teams in advance of the storm and flooding, Leavitt answered, "No." "None of these teams were pre-positioned," he told CNN's "Late Edition." "We're having to organize them … as we go." Such an ad hoc approach might not have surprised Americans until recent decades because the federal government was thought to have few responsibilities for disaster relief, and what duties it did have were mostly delegated to the American Red Cross. "A century ago, no one would have expected a massive federal response. Most people viewed natural disasters mainly as things to be endured on their own or with the help of their neighbors and communities," said Harvard University economic historian David A. Moss, whose recent book, "When All Else Fails: Government as the Ultimate Risk Manager," traces Washington's expanding duties in protecting Americans from all sorts of risks. In 1927, President Coolidge described the federal role in aiding victims of a devastating flood of the lower Mississippi River this way: "To direct the sympathy of our people to the sad plight of thousands of their fellow citizens, and to urge that generous contributions be promptly forthcoming." But starting with the New Deal of the 1930s and with increasing vigor in recent decades, Washington sought to prevent disasters, both natural and man-made, and to partially compensate state and local governments, companies and even individuals when calamities did strike. The government reacted to Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972 by providing victims with grants and low-cost loans. It responded to a flood of the upper Mississippi in 1993 by approving $6.3 billion in aid. Comparing the federal government's response in 1927 to its efforts in 1993, Moss concluded that Washington made up less than 4% of the estimated losses in the earlier flood, but more than 50% in the later one. Within 10 days of the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress and Bush had OKd $40 billion in aid, including $15 billion in grants and loans for the staggering airline industry and $4.3 billion to compensate the families of victims. "The federal government has dramatically increased its role in absorbing disaster losses after the fact," Moss said. "Until recently, many may have assumed we'd made similar strides in disaster prevention." FEMA was created in 1979 in response to criticism about Washington's fragmented reaction to a series of disasters, including Hurricane Camille, which devastated the Mississippi coast 10 years earlier. The agency was rocked by scandal in the 1980s and turned in such a poor performance after Hurricane Andrew struck South Florida in 1992 that President George H.W. Bush is thought to have lost votes as a result. But according to a variety of former officials and outside experts, the agency experienced a renaissance under President Clinton's director, James Lee Witt, speedily responding to the 1993 Mississippi flood, the 1994 Northridge earthquake and other disasters. Witt's biggest change was to get FEMA to focus on reducing risks ahead of disasters and funding local prevention programs. After the 1993 flood, for instance, Witt's agency bought homes and businesses nearest the water and moved their occupants to safer locations. The result in one Illinois town was that although more than 400 people applied for disaster aid after the flood, only 11 needed to apply two years later when the river again jumped its banks. "He got communities to take practical steps like encouraging homeowners to bolt buildings to foundations in earthquake-prone areas and elevate living space in flood-prone ones," said Howard Kunreuther, co-director of the Wharton Risk Center at the University of Pennsylvania. But with the change of administration in 2001, many of Witt's prevention programs were reduced or cut entirely. After Sept. 11, former FEMA officials and outside authorities said, Washington's attention turned to terrorism to the exclusion of almost anything else. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...y?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true
The government's response to this disaster was good/bad compared to what? 9/11 was small in scope compared to this, who will ever know how effective the Tsunami relief was, even Hurricane Andrew did not have to deal with a major urban center. We could spend our entire GDP on the social welfare or we could spend nothing. The system we have is the compromise we reached. The scope of this disaster is unparalled. We are doing a lot but we couldn't ever do enough. Understand that those in anquish will cry out and those that are in a position to help will do all they can, but we can never be insured against disaster. We probably should leave all the finger pointing till after the worst is over and then evaluate how we can do better next time.
I have Republican faithful visiting this weekend, so I can't get the TV off of Fox News. When I saw that Fox was actually reporting the truth and Geraldo was freaking, I was in shock. When Fox starts broadcasting the truth and not the script laid out by the White House, you know things must be bad.
OddsOn, Are you SURE you aren't George W. Bush?? But it is like Major said - sure you are right that it is a Natural Disaster, but people are upset about the incompetence of FEMA. As a taxpayer, it sure doesn't make me feel like I can rest easy knowing that we have complete idiots in high places. You can overcome one, I guess, but it looks like there are a legion of them in DC. If ever there was an opportune time for a 3rd political party to make a move to challenge the Democratic and Republican parties, I feel it is now.
Idiocy is in the eye of the beholder. I'm pretty sure the folks working their asses off to get things accomplished don't think they are idiots....but with the high percentage of idiocy of the human population in general, some of them probably are. Usually the appearance idiocy is a funtion of miscommunication and misunderstanding.
Spending too much time in the BBS makes me despise some of you. Seriously. You are an American embarassment.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...714973&blogID=45938031&Mytoken=20050903210145 Very interesting...I'm going to volunteer next weekend and see for myself.
