America Looking in the Mirror

[jGilder]

Well, as much as Brianc would like us to believe that Bush is innocent of redirecting funds from the levee project that might have prevented the flood, and that he responded to the disaster flawlessly --

Obtuse and provoking, again.

And once again, I refuse to dignify this with a reply.

I simply refuse to be antagonized by this sort of thing.

It's ok, Brian... I think anyone following this thread won't selectively ignore things that don't support your views, and they'll be able to make up their own minds. I think you made some good points and brought forward some good information, I just wish there was a little more mutual respect for each other and what we're presenting. I think you might be putting more emphasis on winning the argument rather than having any objective and thoughtful analysis of what we find collectively. I would like to think we could share information rather than using it as weapons.

[brianc]

It's ok, Brian... I think anyone following this thread won't selectively ignore things that don't support your views, and they'll be able to make up their own minds. I think you made some good points and brought forward some good information, I just wish there was a little more mutual respect for each other and what we're presenting. I think you might be putting more emphasis on winning the argument rather than having any objective and thoughtful analysis of what we find collectively. I would like to think we could share information rather than using it as weapons.

Well, you can pontificate and posture yourself all you want, but I don't think this sort of thing

Well, as much as Brianc would like us to believe that Bush is innocent of redirecting funds from the levee project that might have prevented the flood, and that he responded to the disaster flawlessly --

is the least bit necessary, not to mention respectful.

If you really had good information to support you opinions, you surely wouldn't need to twist my words beyond recognition.

I see nothing here to "win", as you say. I can only surmise that the concept of there being something to "win" is of your own making.

[Tommy]

I have read a lot of good points the last week on C&F about hurricanes.
And as a person that lives on the Gulf coast I think I can say for many that your caring concern is appreciated. Thank you.

[jGilder]

Well, you can pontificate and posture yourself all you want, but I don't think this sort of thing

Well, as much as Brianc would like us to believe that Bush is innocent of redirecting funds from the levee project that might have prevented the flood, and that he responded to the disaster flawlessly --

is the least bit necessary, not to mention respectful.

Is it not true that the underlying point you've been making is that Bush's funding cuts to the levee fortification projects is irrelevant, and that he has responded appropriately to the disaster? If not, please clarify.

[treeshark]

I'm not much of a political animal but I just watched a press briefing by Donald Rumsfeld and various generals. They seemed panicked and deeply inarticulate, taking it in turns to thank each other and speaking as if they were reading lines from a badly written disaster movie. Then I flick channel and there's George Bush at the Red Cross talking gibberish with embarrassed Red cross folk behind him. Well my point, they just don't look competent...

[Cynth]

WARNING - SOAP BOX ORATION AHEAD!

I think you are making very good points and I appreciate having someone who is involved in emergency planning take the time to talk about the logistics involved in dealing with catastophes.

I read through a fair amount of SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA HURRICANE EVACUATION AND SHELTERING PLAN REVISED JANUARY 2000http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/plans/EO ... ment1a.pdf

The many points you bring up did seem to be well-addressed in that document. The various responibilities were delegated to state officials, state agencies, and to parishes.

It seems that virtually no part of that plan was followed. Most obvious was the fact that at the time of the Mandatory Evacuation, people without transportation were told to go to the refuge of last resort---shelter only, no water, no food until weather permits. In the plan, no one would be going there until after evacuation had been halted because of the weather. Before that time, people were to have gone to various staging areas to picked up by public transportation driven by "emergency personnel" and taken to shelters in host-parishes. I heard nothing about evacuation until the mandatory evacuation was announced---but I could have missed something. There should have been a Voluntary Evacuation announced before that during which the bussing of people with mobility problems to host-parish shelters would have begun.

I understand what you are saying about a state plan being more of a general guidance plan than a working plan. It seems clear that there were no host-parish shelters---places with water, food, etc. The host-parishes were charged with responsibility for preparing this part of the plan. The at-risk parishes were in charge of busing, with manpower and vehicular help from the state. Clearly, there was no transport of people without transportation.

I don't know if the parishes did not develop plans or, if they were developed, why they weren't implemented. Possibly they didn't get funding to develop them and get materials they needed. The funding might have been diverted to the needs that were most pressing at the moment. Possibly, because the storm was so large in circumference the only possible host-parish shelters were too far away---I think, but am not sure, that I read something about them being within 200 miles. I presume, since it was on the website, that this plan was the most current one even though the last revision is dated 2000.

It will be interesting in future days to see if anyone does a detailed investigation of the hurricane evacuation and sheltering plans in place for the state and for the individual parishes. I think it is impossible at this point to understand what happened. However, I think that examining the protocols laid out in whatever plans are the current ones and which are presumably in compliance with Federal emergency protocols (like when do you declare this and that, and what does it mean, etc.), establishing what parts of the plans were and weren't carried out, and then finding out why (this might not be possible) would be the first place to start in figuring out why things went wrong.

[jGilder]

Here's an excellent article by Michael Parenti that compares the US government's response to a major hurricane to Cuba's, and examines the parallels of the way the US prepared for such an event to the Republican trend towards privatization. It seems like the privatization of disaster relief is selective and cruel compared to what should have been. Also, the preparation for such disasters was handled more like corporations looking out for their financial interests as opposed to human interests.

======================================

How the Free Market Killed New Orleans

By Michael Parenti
Znet
September 03, 2005

The free market played a crucial role in the destruction of New Orleans and the death of thousands of its residents. Armed with advanced warning that a momentous (force 5) hurricane was going to hit that city and surrounding areas, what did officials do? They played the free market.

They announced that everyone should evacuate. Everyone was expected to devise their own way out of the disaster area by private means, just as the free market dictates, just like people do when disaster hits free-market Third World countries.

It is a beautiful thing this free market in which every individual pursues his or her own personal interests and thereby effects an optimal outcome for the entire society. This is the way the invisible hand works its wonders.

There would be none of the collectivistic regimented evacuation as occurred in Cuba. When an especially powerful hurricane hit that island last year, the Castro government, abetted by neighborhood citizen committees and local Communist party cadres, evacuated 1.3 million people, more than 10 percent of the country's population, with not a single life lost, a heartening feat that went largely unmentioned in the U.S. press.

On Day One of the disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina, it was already clear that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of American lives had been lost in New Orleans. Many people had "refused" to evacuate, media reporters explained, because they were just plain "stubborn."

It was not until Day Three that the relatively affluent telecasters began to realize that tens of thousands of people had failed to flee because they had nowhere to go and no means of getting there. With hardly any cash at hand or no motor vehicle to call their own, they had to sit tight and hope for the best. In the end, the free market did not work so well for them.

Many of these people were low-income African Americans, along with fewer numbers of poor whites. It should be remembered that most of them had jobs before Katrina's lethal visit. That's what most poor people do in this country: they work, usually quite hard at dismally paying jobs, sometimes more than one job at a time. They are poor not because they're lazy but because they have a hard time surviving on poverty wages while burdened by high prices, high rents, and regressive taxes.

The free market played a role in other ways. Bush's agenda is to cut government services to the bone and make people rely on the private sector for the things they might need. So he sliced $71.2 million from the budget of the New Orleans Corps of Engineers, a 44 percent reduction. Plans to fortify New Orleans levees and upgrade the system of pumping out water had to be shelved.

Bush took to the airways and said that no one could have foreseen this disaster. Just another lie tumbling from his lips. All sorts of people had been predicting disaster for New Orleans, pointing to the need to strengthen the levees and the pumps, and fortify the coastlands.

In their campaign to starve out the public sector, the sh*t reactionaries also allowed developers to drain vast areas of wetlands. Again, that old invisible hand of the free market would take care of things. The developers, pursuing their own private profit, would devise outcomes that would benefit us all.

But wetlands served as a natural absorbent and barrier between New Orleans and the storms riding in from across the sea. And for some years now, the wetlands have been disappearing at a frightening pace on the Gulf? coast. All this was of no concern to the reactionaries in the White House.

As for the rescue operation, the free-marketeers like to say that relief to the more unfortunate among us should be left to private charity. It was a favorite preachment of President Ronald Reagan that "private charity can do the job." And for the first few days that indeed seemed to be the policy with the disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina.

The federal government was nowhere in sight but the Red Cross went into action. Its message: "Don't send food or blankets; send money." Meanwhile Pat Robertson and the Christian Broadcasting Network---taking a moment off from God's work of pushing John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court---called for donations and announced "Operation Blessing" which consisted of a highly-publicized but totally inadequate shipment of canned goods and bibles.

By Day Three even the myopic media began to realize the immense failure of the rescue operation. People were dying because relief had not arrived. The authorities seemed more concerned with the looting than with rescuing people. It was property before people, just like the free marketeers always want.

But questions arose that the free market did not seem capable of answering: Who was in charge of the rescue operation? Why so few helicopters and just a scattering of Coast Guard rescuers? Why did it take helicopters five hours to get six people out of one hospital? When would the rescue operation gather some steam? Where were the feds? The state troopers? The National Guard? Where were the buses and trucks? the shelters and portable toilets? The medical supplies and water?

Where was Homeland Security? What has Homeland Security done with the $33.8 billions allocated to it in fiscal 2005? Even ABC-TV evening news (September 1, 2005) quoted local officials as saying that "the federal government's response has been a national disgrace."

In a moment of delicious (and perhaps mischievous) irony, offers of foreign aid were tendered by France, Germany and several other nations. Russia offered to send two plane loads of food and other materials for the victims. Predictably, all these proposals were quickly refused by the White House. America the Beautiful and Powerful, America the Supreme Rescuer and World Leader, America the Purveyor of Global Prosperity could not accept foreign aid from others. That would be a most deflating and insulting role reversal. Were the French looking for another punch in the nose?

Besides, to have accepted foreign aid would have been to admit the truth---that the sh*t reactionaries had neither the desire nor the decency to provide for ordinary citizens, not even those in the most extreme straits. Next thing you know, people would start thinking that George W. Bush was really nothing more than a fulltime agent of Corporate America.

======================================

-------Michael Parenti's recent books include Superpatriotism (City Lights) and The Assassination of Julius Caesar (New Press), both available in paperback. His forthcoming The Culture Struggle (Seven Stories Press) will be published in the fall. For more information visit: www.michaelparenti.org.

[lixnaw]

a lot of people died, and others are still suffering,
(and i totally agree with Jack and others about the free market etc.)it's sad we have to learn from these mistakes
but i'm sure this disaster will bring people closer together. there's gonna be a lot of changes.
one day, it won't matter where you're from, what nationality you have and all that bull...
how much money you have, what religion you've got, what education you have,...
we're all far off from that and have a lot to learn yet.
we have to learn to treat everyone with the same respect, love, understanding,...listen to our hearts.

[Tommy]

Katrina jumped to a cat. five hurricane in a very short time. All of you have good and correct points of view even when you do not agree.
Evacuation plans always look good but they are not a true science, and no way to test untill it happens. There are way to many variables. You have brought up many of them. The people were told to bring three days food and water with them to the Superdome. Most of them did not, and it could be for many reasons. The store ran out, no money, no time,ect...

[lixnaw]

Evacuation plans always look good but they are not a true science, and no way to test untill it happens. There are way to many variables. You have brought up many of them. The people were told to bring three days food and water with them to the Superdome. Most of them did not, and it could be for many reasons. The store ran out, no money, no time,ect...

now that's the free market...

[Tommy]

Are the socialists blaming the right wing again and the pragmatist surviving?

[izzarina]

I found this article today, and thought it pertinent. I'm not sure if there is something from the BBC as well (which would have more credibility, I'm sure), but until I am able to do more of a search, this is what I have.

Lt. Cmdr. Sean Kelly: Military Was Ready but Waiting for Bush

Lt. Cmdr. Sean Kelly of Northern Command was interviewed by the BBC Saturday 9/3/05 about military preparation and deployment after Hurricane Katrina. In the course of the interview he said: "The only caveat is we have to wait until the President authorizes us to do so. The laws of the United States say that the military can't just act in this fashion; we have to wait for the President to give us permission." Click here to view the video (which loads very slowly).

Prior to this Kelly said that the military was in a state of readiness, because they had already been alerted to the possibility of Katrina hitting Florida.

"Northcom started planning before the storm even hit. We were ready when it hit Florida, because, as you remember, it hit the bottom part of Florida, and then we were planning once it was pointed towards the Gulf Coast.

"So, what we did, we activated what we call 'defense coordinating officers' to work with the states to say, 'OK, what do you think you will need?' And we set up staging bases that could be started.

"We had the USS Bataan sailing almost behind the hurricane so once the hurricane made landfall, its search and rescue helicopters could be available almost immediately. So, we had things ready."

Sorry...this disturbs me. If the USS Bataan was already in the area (after following the hurricane), then why were no orders given to help?

I also found this, concerning the capabilities of the USS Bataan:

The Chicago Tribune reports that the U.S.S. Bataan, equipped with six operating rooms, hundreds of hospital beds and the ability to produce 100,000 gallons of fresh water a day, has been sitting off the Gulf Coast since last Monday - without patients.

If this is true, and it is also true that the ship was already there, then WHY on earth was it not utilized????? It has been stated that it's nearly impossible to get water and provisions so quickly in situations such as this, but apparently, this proves otherwise. All that was needed was the command from "above". Apparently that command, for some reason, was terribly delayed.

[Tommy]

The president must wait for the Governor to ask for help. And the six steps of the major disaster process must be used.

[s1m0n]

The president must wait for the Governor to ask for help. And the six steps of the major disaster process must be used.

According to FEMA's website, once the President declares a disaster area, they're in charge of disaster relief.

As far as all the accounts on the ground are concerned, that's been the opinion of FEMA in action, as well. They thought--and acted--as if they were in charge, but never actually *did* much that was helpful. They certainly felt no embarrassment about making rules and issuing orders.

I don't find the "we had to wait for the governor" excuse convincing. What kept them out of Alabama, anyway?

[izzarina]

The president must wait for the Governor to ask for help. And the six steps of the major disaster process must be used.

Back in the late '80s, Dukakis took Reagan to court for sending troops into Granada (if memory serves me right....), saying Reagan didn't have the right to send HIS troops overseas without HIS permission. Reagan of course won the case, because he was the Commander in Chief of ALL the troops. Did Johnson ask the governors of the states if he could come in to enforce desegregation of the schools in the south? The title "Commander in Chief" actually does mean something....if the President wants to send troops anywhere, from and/or into any state, he has that right by virtue of his office. And as Simon pointed out, the President had already declared it a disaster area the Saturday before the hurricane even hit.