Hurricane Katrina

[Khamûl]

In light of recent events, here is a thread for everyone to discuss your feelings about Hurricane Katrina and the ensuing devastation.

Personally, I'm sure everyone is doing everything they can to help the horrible situation. All we can do is send money and pray.

[Ben]

Bm, you've obviously got a bias that fact and statement cannot change and so I shall not even try.

Spock - I think you just don't want to go supporting your opinions with facts. Please, let's have an intelligent debate using media reports, budget data, rules regarding which agency does what. If you take the time and use news reports and numbers that clearly contradict my conclusions, I'll rescind my statements. I promise. Arguing with opinions alone does little but waste everyone's time. If my information is wrong, please debunk it, and come up with data and reports to back up your own assertions. Please. I'm begging for a real debate on this rather than just a cop-out and retreat. If there's too much information that I've posted, then you can focus on just one or two of my claims. If I didn't properly source a fact, then I'll be happy to dig up a reference for you. Don't let it go all unanswered - that doesn't do your point of view justice.

You said that Bush "couldn't know exactly what would be needed and where." Do you really believe that with scenes of New Orleans in shambles on TV, he didn't know enough to immediately end his vacation? He didn't have the empathy to cancel his schmoozing with music stars as people were dying? He couldn't have been upset enough to personally phone his underlings and tell them to fill the next transport to New Orleans with troops? In this case, you give the man too little credit. He's not an idiot, and he has some highly skilled and informed advisors. Ok, so maybe you think Bush himself doesn't know how to respond. What about the administration - the Cabinet, the agencies? If you think that his advisors are not up to the challenge of immediately telling the president how to competently react to a predictable national disaster, four years after 9/11, then isn't that grounds for their firing?

Bush is the president, so I wanted to be able to look up to him and see him leading the way after this disaster. I really did. I have no reason to want him to fail with lives at stake; the man is never up for re-election ever again anyway. I would love to point to his handling of this crisis as a highlight of an administration that otherwise makes policy choices I disagree with. Even if it meant a bump in Republican approval ratings, I really wish that Bush and his administration had reacted competently; they didn't.

Some Republicans are saying that all criticism of Bush has to be partisan and biased. If that is the case, why did the conservative Washington Times write on Friday that they "expected to see, many hours ago, the president ... rallying a dazed country to action." Why did former (Republican) Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich say that the federal response to Katrina "calls into question all of the Homeland Security and Northern Command planning for the last four years, because if we can't respond faster than this to an event we saw coming across the Gulf for days, then why do we think we're prepared to respond to a nuclear or biological attack?" Why did Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana say that he gives federal disaster relief efforts a "failing grade"? If you are unfamiliar with the Washington Times or Mr. Gingrich, I'll provide documentation of their Republican bona fides.

If Newt Gingrich and the Washington Times are saying the same thing as me, does that mean they also have a bias that fact and statement cannot change? Because I voted for Kerry, does that mean that figures and quotes I get from government websites and media reports, along with all my logic, must be wrong or unworthy of comment? Everyone has a bias. You seem to be right-of-center and I'd be willing to bet that you didn't vote for the Democratic governor of Virginia (you can correct me on this though). Does that mean that you are disqualified from forming opinions on Gov. Warner's handling of a given situation, just because of your ideological bent? Please reply - I'm genuinely perplexed on these questions.

I spent two and a half hours researching last night's post, and an hour on this one. Southern courtesy alone dictates I should get at least 20 minutes of your time.

Everyone else: I plan on responding to as many replies as I can, even from partisan Republicans (they're people too .) Please hold on; I'll add more responses when I get a chance.

[Ben]

bump

[Spock]

I mean what I say.

[gdl96]

nicely said, ben.

my two cents:
these people lack food and water.
the hurricane was several days ago.
where is their food and water? it's inexcusable and embarrassing. drop food and water from airplanes like we do in africa if need be, i don't care. those shelters in New Orleans shouldn't make America look like a third world nation.

[Butterbeer]

wow, there's anough points here to write a book about.

One thing from skimming through that strikes me about the "debate" though is that it does seem underlying many of the points that there is here political bias creeping in - on here in this thread i mean.

I really think it would be sick to twist this debate arond to petty politics when it is about a large scale natural tragedy that is unfolding even now as we speak, with starvation, thirst, people cut off, lost, alone, wet, cold, feverish, injured, despairing, with brutal lawlessness, rape, beatings, looting and murder, in a mere few days the decline of moral codes and the ideals of civilisation ... the loss of people's life savings and properties and business's etc ... and the poor the worst off in all respects .... will they all have insurance? etc.


The response really does seem, no matter the scale, abolutely incredibly undeniably pathetic ... they knew a large scale hurricane was coming right at new orleans a few days before .... they had models of potential impacts... it was condisered the one of the three "most likely" major national disaster to plan for ... ok "likely" here Lief probably means not that it is likely to happen in any XXX numbers of years ... but as likely as anything else unexpected that may happen and needs planning for...


I think BM is right that this should not be viewed in any way about political bias: there is a very real bigger picture here: and everyone imho should not try to make cheap political tricks out of this.


By the way don't ask me for facts about underlying bias creeping in ... this is just a feeling and hunch ... so you'll get no examples from me any of you!

Plus, not being an American i have only good guesses (hopefully) about who's who etc ... anyway it's not something i really want to know or think about.



For myself, firstly i am glad to see that people ARE interested in this topic!

I think it is indisputable that the federal goverment has been diabolically slow and useless in responding ... now they seem to have woken up and read the vastly mounting criticism .... and thought about the International repercussions of America looking incompetent and powerless. I fear this will not play well for your image around the world. And it will sadly be a flame to a moth for Extremists, both in case of the moral decay and lawlessness, rapes, murder, beatings, etc and the percieved weakness of your ability to handle homeland security or other such situations in your own back yard.

Now please all be clear: this is not an attack on you guys just what i fear it looks like from abroad ...


Maybe now they are starting to wake up and smell the coffee .. and i know not how much is local (surely devastated? or at least severly devastated) state or city administration or how much is federal ... but with a NATIONAL disaster on this scale you look to your countr'y leader ....


when some one pointed out (was it BM?) that bush was playing guitar ... i thought of Tony blair.. because he plays the guitar and has done with many celebs etc ....


but whatever you (or I) may think of the UK leader ... can you imagine Blair playing guitar at a time like that? No he's have been off straight away and
organising a centralised response effort and been flying over the area asap and having other key figures do so.


Many of my points come down to this: it is not that they could in anyway help everyone or solve everything overnight ... not possible at all, nor with the scale does anyone expect them to ... but whatever humanly possible help and response that was at least possible wasn't done either at all, or quickly, or in any way efficiently: they seeme to have their heads in the sand ...

and the local boys must have been hard hit by this .... ultimately it comes down to National goverment ... and that is not , and really shouldn't at this point, not be a political thing - not yet!

Time to pull together and help out in anyway we can.

[Ben]

Those "relieve the rich" laws that have been passed have been good for the economy and for society as a whole. - Lief

A general discussion of the merits of supply-side economics would be best suited for another thread. However, whether or not deep tax cuts are good policy for creating jobs, I think it's pretty clear that they're not effective for dealing with national catastrophes.

Although I suppose people could use part of their tax refunds to donate to the Red Cross, in almost all cases the American taxpayers could not directly aid the people of New Orleans. There are many stories of FEMA turning away highly-skilled individuals and groups - I can provide details if you'd like.

Jonah Goldberg, a conservative writer for the conservative National Review, allows the following about different economic philosophies:

For years, Democrats complained that we needed to spend more on "first-responders." I took this for what it often was: an attempt to pad municipal budgets with pork. But, one must concede it wasn't entirely about that either. And while it's likely this disaster would have presented many if not most of the challenges we're seeing this week, even if all that money had been spent as the Democrats wanted, it remains hard to dispute that it would have been better spent than much of the garbage in recent budgets.

Now, I think that in a conservative zeal for shrinking government and cutting waste, they seem to have cut too much (see one of my previous posts for specifics). I think it's a fair criticism to say that some of the money returned to the taxpayers should have been used for disaster preparation. Tax cuts, combined with the usual pork and spending that both parties have engaged in, left precious little wiggle room for creative solutions or federal funds for the doomed Big Easy.

[Ben]

On September 8th, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a $51 billion aid package for victims of Hurricane Katrina. If you take a close look at the roll call, you'll notice the vote was not unanimous. Of those present, all the Democrats and the vast majority of Republicans, unsurprisingly, voted for the aid package. But 11 Republican congressmen somehow voted against the aid package.

I don't know what their rationale was, but I note that all of this band of 11 are ardent free-market, government-shrinking conservatives. These aren't just random congressmen, either - one is the head of the Judiciary Committee, and another is the head of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Now, everyone in the chamber must have known that the bill was going to pass. Yet these 11 conservatives decided to make a statement and vote against the aid package because ... ?

See what I mean about conservative economic ideology and natural disasters?

[Tree Dweller]

I think this thread has been completely spoiled for those of us who would like to discuss others things besides politics.

[Earniel]

It seems there is devastation everywhere this summer. There are terrible ongoing fires in Portugal and the other part of Europe has been drowning in floods as well.

Although we don't have category 5 hurricanes here and thank god for that! I can't really imagine what it would be like. I hope the relief efforts get on their way soon. I find it mind-boggling to think people would just have to leave New Orleans for months before coming back and rebuild the city.

[Valandil]

OK - third time's a charm:

I've just been staggered by this whole thing (and rarely post here in GM anymore anyway). The concept that a major - and famous - city like New Orleans might even have to be abandoned or something (at least a good chunk of it - and for at least a long time) - is just mind-boggling.

And then there's all the deaths... I don't even know how long it'll be before we truly have a good count. They'll have to get the water out of New Orleans and go into every attic... As well as all the ones in other places.

BB - let's keep this thread about Hurrican Katrina and the people affected by it.

[Tree Dweller]

I am curious to know if any of our Mooters live in the affected areas, I pray if so that they are all safe. I live in Pensacola, FL and Katrina side-swiped us. I just now have power again and wonder how many others here cannot get online?

[The Gaffer]

Truly horrific. The death toll is staggering, and those poor people trapped in their apartment blocks with no food, water or electricity must be going spare. The entire city looks like it will be abandoned for at least several weeks.

I guess it's also a massive cultural blow to the US, with New Orleans' francophone roots etc.

Not much more to say, other than I hope everyone gets out safely and they fix it up as quickly as they can.

[brownjenkins]

i have a very good friend from another board (sound's crazy, but you probably all know how you can develop close friendships via the net )

he lives in Metairie... left side of map here



i haven't heard from him since sunday night... i'm hoping it's just the lack of internet thing