Hurricane Katrina: A consolidated list of questions and answers about the crisis.

[yllus]

With an extraordinarily high amount of misinformation circulating about the crisis in New Orleans, I thought I might try to do something helpful for once and write out a consolidated question and answer post about what's gone on in Louisiana lately.

Q: Who's at fault for this disaster?
A: A lot of people. Maybe everyone going all the way back to the state and federal governments since 1965. The standard the levees of the city were constructed to then was to withstand a Category 3 hurricane (on the five-step scale). An upgrade would have meant a minimum of $2.5 billion being spent; a number staggering enough for scores of politicians since then to gamble for decades with the lives of the now affected. (Source: NY Times)

Q: How about the claim that federal cuts under the Bush administration led to the delaying of levee upgrades until it was too late?
A: Unfortunately, it seems that we sometimes forget that Mother Nature truly does wield forces beyond our imagination or control. The lack of funding and innumerable delays associated with them did not end up playing a factor in the flooding of the state. As it turns out, "the levees near Lake Pontchartrain that gave way were completed and in good condition before the hurricane...had this project been fully complete, it is my opinion that based on the intensity of this storm that the flooding of the business district and the French Quarter would have still taken place." (Source: Chicago Tribune)

Q: Was FEMA meant to head up this relief effort?
A: The typical role of the agency is to take a secondary role and provide assistance, specialized equipment and financial aid to local and state agencies. In case of a disaster local and state authorities are supposed to start reeling off orders out of a playbook drawn up years in advance. FEMA then coordinates cross-state or city efforts and the like. I think a lot of people put an unholy amount of trust and credit to the federal government of the United States, but there are clearly drawn up lines of authority that it simply is not allowed to cross. On an immediate basis, this is a local and state issue. (Source: Chicago Tribune)

Q: Okay. For the part they played though, what's up with the bungling of the disaster by FEMA?
A: Lord, who knows. A lot of the mismanagement has been attributed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's director Michael Brown, which is probably a bit shortsighted. (What single man really makes or breaks a large government agency's plans?) Brown's credentials seem poor to average, as he oversaw emergency services in the central Oklahoma city of Edmond in the mid-1970s. Speaking only as a layman, I would have hoped that he would have national-level expertise before reaching the position that he now holds. Brown became director in 2001 when then-FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh named him as his successor. At times, it's seemed that the press has been more informed about what's going on in the flood zone than FEMA's director. There's an ongoing debate as to whether it's better to sh!tcan the guy right now and risk changing horses mid-race, or later on when it won't cause quite as much trouble. (Source: Chicago Tribune)

Q: Why wasn't the Army deployed immediately to the region?
A: The commander of National Guard troops in Louisiana is the governor of the state, in this case Kathleen Blanco. (While the President of the United States can supercede the governor's authority and issue orders to the troops directly, "presidents of both parties traditionally defer to governors to deploy their own National Guardsmen and request help from other states when it comes to natural disasters.") The way National Guard troops operate is not on a full-time active basis. In a disaster scenario, soldiers report from their normal full-time jobs and homes to base, receieve instructions and get to where they need to be to pick up gear and transportation. A 24 hour turnaround time would be remarkable - 72 hours minimum is more realistic. Troops did make it to the Superdome on September 2nd to restore order there. (Source: Associated Press, Defence Dept.)

Q: Did the state suffer because our the bulk of our regular troops are overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan?
A: No. It's the National Guard that's primarily tasked to disaster relief efforts in the country, and the majority of the National Guard is safely at home in the U.S (that's 300,000 troops). In Senator Bond's words: "Sixty-five percent of Louisiana's Guard members were available, and 60 percent of Mississippi's were available. There's still far more Guardsmen and women available than are overseas." Ironically, troops would have been faster and more effective on the scene if all they had to do was kill people and blow up stuff. But in this situation they've got to take their gear (because of the spate of lawlessness) plus haul tons of medicine, food and water with them. Logistics = time. (Source: The Mercury News)

Q: I heard that troops aren't allowing civilians into the city, or out of shelters like the Superdome. What's the deal?
A: A combination of factors make the city really dangerous right now. The one we all know about is the roving gangs of armed rapists and looters (though all of 5-7 people have actually reportedly been shot by law enforcement). Worse is the overflow of garbage, human waste from sewers and substations, chemical plants and tankers leaking into the water as well as the contamination from corpses of the drowned and murdered. It's likely that portions of the city may still be electrified, and water + electricity = danger. In a situation like this, as much as we may wish for individual responsibility and freedom it may be better to button everyone down for a while in contained areas while the disaster is managed. (Source: NZ Herald)

Q: Why was this disaster relief effort so badly bungled while 9/11 was run so well?
A: Combination of factors again. First and primarily, you have scale. National Guard historian Michael Doubler: "With the commitment of 20,000 National Guard troops at this early stage, this operation is already four or five times larger than the sustained National Guard response that followed the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9-11." Keep in mind that this is hardly just the city of New Orleans being affected. Much of both the states of Lousiana and Mississippi were hit hard - we're talking some 90,000 square miles. Just getting down to New Orleans is a monumental task in itself. Next you have the relative wealth of the state of New York versus Lousiana and Mississippi - both in the top three poorest states in the union. Sadly, that sort of thing does matter when it comes to disaster relief planning and the reaction during a crisis of the affected civilians. (Source: Army News Service)

Q: Why the hell do people live in a city below sea level that's at constant threat of hurricanes anyways? Why didn't they leave when warned?
A: Obviously we don't know exactly how the human mind works, but we do have a good idea about some things. Sociologists and psychologists use the term 'heuristics' to describe the mental strategies we've developed as a species for dealing with both reality and uncertainty. One of the most important is the so-called "availability heuristic," which has a lot do with memories of what we've experienced. "People who have lived through small hurricanes say, 'Well, I'm not going to evacuate, I've been through this one or that one,' without realizing that the past does not predict the future," says Kathleen Tierney, director of the Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado. What they haven't been through is the next hurricane, which could be a lot worse. I highly encourage you all to read the article linked, and I'll also post it in a reply below. (Source: Toronto Star)

Q: Which heads are going to roll for the mismanagement of this whole affair?
Hard to come up with specifics this soon, but probably quite a few people. Homeland Security and FEMA messed up. People in the administration for the state of LA messed up. The local police force of New Orleans messed up. On the topic of George Bush Jr, I think it's safe to say that the President of the United States is not exactly well known for admitting errors when he's committed them, but then again nor is it reasonable to expect him to handpick and examine every single top candidate of every federal and state agency. You would think that a creation of his own like Homeland Security would have an indisputably credentialed staff, though. If you have a grievance, remember to take it to the polls in 2006.

Q: Will New Orleans be rebuilt?
A: Are you kidding me? Aside from being the port where 20% of America's shipped supplies come in, you're talking about a nation that practically defined itself with the spirit of rebellion and that the sky's the limit. To hell with if rebuilding the city in precariously placed land is smart or not, I expect the state to rebuild the city solely to stick it in Mother Nature's face.

 

[Kalvin00]

Excellent thread. :thumbsup:

 

[M00T]

I call shens.

R

suwwy wove.

 

[Goosemaster]

Fantastic.

 

[luigi1]

Nicely done, well thought out, and reasonably non partisan. The question is what would need to be in place to have gotten these people bottled water within at least within 3 days? Identifying and evacuation those who are sick/need medical attention being the next layer of the onion. And getting the guard on the street corner to inforce martial law. Ill guess 3 days but sooner is prefired. And I dont expect you to answer, rather as discussion points for the assembled. Again thank you I didnt see anything there I disagreed strongly with.

 

[imported_Condor]

The best post I have seen here. Non partisan, logical, clear, concise and well composed. Very instructional. Good research. Great job!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: luigi1
Nicely done, well thought out, and reasonably non partisan. The question is what would need to be in place to have gotten these people bottled water within at least within 3 days? Identifying and evacuation those who are sick/need medical attention being the next layer of the onion. And getting the guard on the street corner to inforce martial law. Ill guess 3 days but sooner is prefired. And I dont expect you to answer, rather as discussion points for the assembled. Again thank you I didnt see anything there I disagreed strongly with.

A person has to take some responsibility for his/her self. I would have carried in beef jerky (light weight protien) and bottled water. I would have carried a couple of purification devices too. All of those things are easy to get and cheap.

 

[yllus]

Q: Why the hell do people live in a city below sea level that's at constant threat of hurricanes anyways? Why didn't they leave when warned?
A: To answer this, I'm going to quote in its entirety an article from the Toronto Star entitled, 'Why we place ourselves in harm's way'.

Several years ago, an idea was aired in New Orleans: Why not spend roughly $1 billion (U.S.) to raise and fortify the levees that surround the city, protecting it from water on all sides. That way, you'd prevent untold billions of dollars worth of damage should the next hurricane really pack a punch.

The idea went nowhere. Was this rational? Or, for that matter, was it smart for people to keep living in New Orleans, knowing disaster could strike? And what about the millions of Americans who have, in recent decades, been relocating to the Old South in search of jobs, retirement homes and warmer weather, despite the regular threat of deadly hurricanes?

The answer, it turns out, isn't nearly as cut and dried as it may seem with hindsight, and it has a lot to do with how the human brain perceives risk and prepares for it. In other words, a realm where nothing is simple.

"Humankind has certain ways of processing risk information that are not what we would program a computer to do, but they are what we routinely do," says Peter Sandman, a professor of human ecology at Rutgers University. That doesn't make it bad, necessarily, just human.

Sociologists and psychologists, for instance, like to talk about "heuristics" ? the mental strategies we've developed as a species for dealing with both reality and uncertainty.

One of the most important is the so-called "availability heuristic," which has a lot do with memories of what we've experienced. If, for instance, you once fell down a hill and broke your arm, you'll think you have a pretty good idea of what falling down a hill is like.

It's no different with hurricanes. "People who have lived through small hurricanes say, `Well, I'm not going to evacuate, I've been through this one or that one,' without realizing that the past does not predict the future," says Kathleen Tierney, director of the Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado. What they haven't been through is the next hurricane, which could be a lot worse.

The other big problem: We tend to be highly myopic.

"People have very short-term horizons," says Howard Kunreuther, co-director of the Risk Management and Decision Processes Center at the Wharton School of Business. We can imagine the next few years, he notes, but we have trouble thinking about, say, a $2,000 investment in storm shutters that might protect our house for 30 years. We only consider the (potentially negligible) return on that investment in the short-term, and skip the shutters.

How we assess and respond to risks is equally skewed by what Sandman calls "outrage factors." Is the activity voluntary and do we have a measure of control? If the answer to those questions is yes, then the outrage ? and hence our perception of risk ? is lower. Almost everyone, for instance, feels safer driving than riding shotgun.

And is the risk familiar? Riding a bicycle, for instance, is statistically dangerous, but it's such a common activity that we tend to play down those risks.

We then do just the opposite with unfamiliar, exotic risks like explosions at a chemical factory.

"The risks that kill you are not necessarily the risks that anger and frighten you," says Sandman.

In all, he cites nine major "outrage factors," including fairness (does everyone suffer equally or does one group escape?) and morality (is it a natural occurrence or is there a clear villain?), that help determine how we react to potential risks.

Overall, hurricanes score low on outrage.

But our biggest weakness is trying to calibrate the severity of a potential disaster with its likelihood. "We do fine with low-magnitude, high-probability risks," he notes. That would include how we drive on the highway. "Ask yourself, `Why do people not speed more than they do?'" Well, there are two potential reasons: You don't want to get a ticket or you don't want to die in a car crash. But most people only think about the first reason. "We have trouble imagining that we're going to die in a flaming wreck."

When it comes to low-probability but high-magnitude risks like the car crash, says Sandman, "We either interpret the probability as zero, and then the magnitude doesn't matter, or we try to convince ourselves that the probability is high, so we can worry about it." The latter, he notes, is precisely the mistake George W. Bush made in assessing Iraq. "Was the idea of Saddam Hussein having nuclear weapons horrific? Yes. Was it likely? No."

Monster hurricanes fall into the same low-probability, high-magnitude category. But the issue is further muddied by the huge costs of any attempts to prevent or mitigate potential damage. Faced with finite resources, we have to make choices. Do we take money away from, say, cancer research or public housing or defending against terrorists to prepare for a disaster that may happen tomorrow, or may not happen for decades?

"It's only afterwards that the question is, why didn't we see this coming? And the answer is: We did see it coming, but we saw 10,000 other disasters coming, too, and we had to allocate our budget," says Sandman.

And with hurricanes, any kind of cost-benefit analyst is no longer a purely local matter, as it was in the simpler times of New Orleans circa 1800, when local citizens and farmers were solely responsible for flood protection. "We've deflected the costs," says Craig Colten, a geography professor at Louisiana State University and the author of An Unnatural Metropolis: Wresting New Orleans from Nature.

"The costs have been shifted outward to an ever-enlarging population, and currently much of the cost is borne by the federal government."

Which raises something economists call the "moral hazard" argument, a favourite tack of those on the political right.

The essence of moral hazard is that if you offer people some kind of universal or seemingly free service, like health care, they won't bother doing anything as individuals to protect themselves, such as buying additional health insurance, losing weight or keeping fit. Their behaviour, in fact, could become much riskier than it otherwise would be. Hence, the "moral hazard."

If you lived in the American South, for instance, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that governments would do as much as they could to protect citizens from danger, and Americans generally put a great deal of faith in institutions like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Meteorological Service.

You might also reasonably expect that, should a disastrous hurricane strike, other Americans would sympathetically open their wallets and send aid, and the National Guard would arrive to deal with any emergencies. Knowing all that, what would your personal responsibility be? Would there be anything meaningful that you could do on your own to top those measures?

And, anyway, those concerns are quickly overshadowed by more immediate problems. "People tend to prioritize what they confront every day, and something that isn't going to happen today ? even if we know it will eventually happen ? tends to get piled up in one corner of the desk," says Tricia Wachtendorf, assistant professor at the University of Delaware's Disaster Research Center.

Those day-to-day concerns ? jobs, good schools for kids, and the incidence of crime ? are not only pressing, but occur in every geographic location, notes James Kendra, a professor in the department of public administration at the University of North Texas.

He thinks people have become fatalistic about natural disasters, figuring every region has its potential dangers, and you're always going to be more comfortable with the one you're familiar with. "I've had students from California who talk about the tornado risk in Texas and how much greater to them it seems than the earthquake risk they've just left behind."

Our reaction to disasters after they've occurred, however, can also be clouded by misperception of risks. Tsunamis, for instance, are rare in the Indian Ocean, and after the last one hit our big concern has been how to protect that part of the world from the next one. What we haven't done is look at other areas of the world where tsunamis are about as equally rare. As in, the Atlantic Ocean. "What is New York doing about the tsunami that will one day hit New York?" asks Sandman. "The answer is: nothing."

Nor does having expert advice near at hand necessarily help. In Colorado, for instance, where Tierney teaches, flash floods are a big hazard.

"So what did the university do?" she asks. "It bought a bunch of property in the floodplain to build housing for students."

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: luigi1
Nicely done, well thought out, and reasonably non partisan.

Wish all posts were like this. Something might actually get discussed around here rather than simple partisan bickering as if we were the ones running for office.

The question is what would need to be in place to have gotten these people bottled water within at least within 3 days?

Lt. General Honore a Louisiana native, who by the way is the only person Ray Nagin praised through all of this, explained that pretty well. He brought up point 1, I'm bringing up 2, 3, and 4:

1) The hurricane was suspected to hit furtherwest than it did which forced all aid and supplies to be positioned hours west of New Orleans.

2) When the hurricane was only 140 miles from New Orleans it more than doubled its speed of movement which is very, very, very rare. This caught alot of relief people with their pants down as they weren't ready to move that fast.

3) The fact that alot of the locals planned to ride it out in the dome rather than try to leave and the storm gaining speed so quickly caused there to be alot more people. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% of the city remained behind which is over 100,000 people.

4) I don't think any of the relief workers were planning on fighting any armed civilians while they tried to rescue people. While I will grant you that it isn't a tremendously large section of the people still there, it is enough to make it a very hazardous area for anyone to work in.


That's afew reasons.

 

[Zebo]

Boy talk about a government applogist and selective information. This is about as Bias a speil as you can get.

For example who cares if 99% of National Guard is here if all the first reponders are in Iraq? Accountants and cooks dont do you much good.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_2136.shtml

Maybe tomorrow if I feel up to it I'll try and present a more balanced arguement... the truth is often in the middle somewhere.

 

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Boy talk about a government applogist and selective information. This is about as Bias a speil as you can get.

For example who cares if 99% of National Guard is here if all the first reponders are in Iraq? Accountants and cooks dont do you much good.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_2136.shtml

Maybe tomorrow if I feel up to it I'll try and present a more balanced arguement... the truth is often in the middle somewhere.

So, that is an unbiased source?

 

[luigi1]

The op in this thread is a rare gem. Again very nicley done. I'm trying to particapate in this forum because sometimes theres a thoughtfull exchange of opinion. I beleave my first post here was to start a topic with resulted in a range of opinions and helped me see the subject from many different views and helped me understand better. I'm all about opinion and tolerance of opinion. I'm growing less tolerant of the point of the day types though I'll defend there right to bandwidth as well. I will just chose not to perticapte in the discussion.

 

[K1052]

A very rational post, something that is in increasingly short supply here.

Nicely done yllus.

 

[Michael]

Zebo,

I have no idea why you're tossing that link into different posts and claiming it proves something. The article is about speculation about the potential risk everywhere in the USA because more "first responders" are in Iraq.

It doesn't explain or define "first responders". It doesn't list or prove that any from LA are there or that, if there are some, that there are enough gone to make any difference.

The bare facts on this are simple. National Guardsmen are drawn from the local population. The local population in the New Orleans area evacuated the area ahead of the storm. There is little evidence that the State government activated the National Guard before the storm to any real degree.

Even if they had, they would have been staged outside of the city. That area was hit by the hurricane after it left the coast. Sure, the storm lost a lot of punch as it went inland, but it was still bad enough to snarl air traffic. The roads were in bad shape as they were still full of people fleeing the storm.

Compound the problem with the fact that inital reports were that the storm was missing the city proper and that there was some wind damage but nothing like was expected. News of the flooding came hours later.

Trying to blame the problem on Iraq is stretching it and makes me think your agenda is an anti-Iraq war agenda, not a what went wrong on the Gulf Coast agenda. That's fine, but it is depressing that a better thread like this one would be muddled up with posts like yours citing at best a dubious source that doesn't even say or prove what you say it does.

Michael

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Boy talk about a government applogist and selective information. This is about as Bias a speil as you can get.

For example who cares if 99% of National Guard is here if all the first reponders are in Iraq? Accountants and cooks dont do you much good.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_2136.shtml

Maybe tomorrow if I feel up to it I'll try and present a more balanced arguement... the truth is often in the middle somewhere.

"Some commanders from the Southeast likewise worry about hurricane season. After a big storm, there is high demand for precisely the sort of troops that have been deployed most heavily -- military police to keep order and engineers to clear debris.

"It's not just how many, it's who, and what kind of skill sets they have," said Maj. Gen. David B. Poythress, Georgia's commander. "When both my MP companies are gone, I don't have any MPs to put on the street."

In Mississippi, the unit designated as "first responders" to repair hurricane damage, the 223rd Engineer Battalion, was deployed for the past year to Iraq. It has come home, said Maj. Gen. Harold A. Cross. But, he added, "they left the equipment in Iraq." He has been told that by hurricane season he will be given the gear belonging to another unit being deployed. He also noted that he has sent 21 helicopters to Iraq, leaving just five for post-storm rescues and transport of cargo and troops."

link (6/04)



"The U.S. Army National Guard, battered by its major role in the Iraq war, announced Thursday it would increase enlistment bonuses to attract new recruits and seek $20 billion to replace arms and equipment.

The commander of the Pentagon?s National Guard Bureau said it must replace equipment destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan or left there for other Guard troops, so that units would have enough equipment to also use at home in emergencies. "

link (12/04)



"The Pentagon, by changing the National Guard's mission, leaves governors with fewer forces to fight fires or handle disasters

Pentagon officials gained 10 helicopters and hundreds of extra soldiers when they ordered two Montana National Guard units into Iraq late last year.

But they undercut Montana's wildland firefighting force, leaving a state with millions of acres of trees critically low on manpower and aircraft as it enters fire season.

"We have two Chinooks," Gov. Brian Schweitzer said of his remaining helicopter fleet. "But I don't have flight crews for them. They're all in Iraq."
....
"When I first became adjutant general, 90 percent of the mobilizations were to support the state," said Maj. Gen. Paul Monroe, recently retired commander of the California National Guard. "Now, 90 percent are to support the federal government. That was never envisioned."

Governors generally have supported the mobilizations of their Guard units, saying they understand wartime needs and want to do their part. But support has begun to wane as it becomes clear that military planners are demanding a larger share of the Guard, and will for years to come.

Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire attended a National Governors Association meeting in Arizona this spring to hear a military briefing on the future of the Guard. What she heard shocked her.

"The long-term strategy for national defense is to rely on the National Guard," the first-term governor said. "We sent a message that they'd better rethink their long-term strategy.

"The National Guard is not, in my estimation, prepared to do that," she said. "We need them at home for natural disasters." "

link (6/05)

 

[totalcommand]

Mostly good, but you missed the key key question of Q: What were the detailed failures of the relief effort?.

Your post makes it seem everything went right (your answers justify the emergency response of delayed national guard and holding people in the city), but tell me what exactly went wrong. That will justify these Q: Why was this disaster relief effort so badly bungled while 9/11 was run so well? and Q: Okay. For the part they played though, what's up with the bungling of the disaster by FEMA?

I also think you put little thought into the fact that State and Local forces were overwhelmed, and that is the reason FEMA was needed to take a strong role in coordination and response.

And this statement is false: "A 24 hour turnaround time would be remarkable - 72 hours minimum is more realistic."

Chertoff, the spokesman for FEMA, said that in real emergency situations the national guard can be mobilized in 24 hours. Apparently, people didn't consider this a real emergency or something went wrong with coordination in FEMA.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Michael
Zebo,

I have no idea why you're tossing that lionk into different posts and claiming it proves something. The article is about speculation about the potential risk everywhere in the USA because more "first responders" are in Iraq.

It doesn't explain or define "first reposnders". It doesn't list or prove that any from LA are there or that, if there are some, that there are enough gone to make any difference.

The bare facts on this are simple. National Guardsmen are drawn from the local population. The local population in the New Orleans area evacuated the area ahead of the storm. There is little evidence that the State government activated the National Guard before the storm to any real degree.

Even if they had, they would have been staged outside of the city. That area was hit by the hurricane after it left the coast. Sure, the storm lost a lot of punch as it went inland, but it was still bad enough to snarl air traffic. The roads were in bad shape as they were still full of people fleeing the storm.

Compound the problem with the fact that inital reports were that the storm was missing the city proper and that there was some wind damage but nothing like was expected. News of the flooding came hours later.

Trying to blame the problem on Iraq is stretching it and makes me think your agenda is an anti-Iraq war agenda, not a what went wrong on the Gulf Coast agenda. That's fine, but it is depressing that a better thread like this one would be muddled up with posts like yours citing at best a dubious source that doesn't even say or prove what you say it does.

Michael

That's cause thier indelibly linked. For every dollar spent in attacking iraq is one less dollar we are spending at home. For every soldier that's over there that's one less solidier that can be over here. The only question is how much effect it's having if any. Yllus, in his "unbias" assesment, quotes opinon pieces saying notta, for everyone he finds I can find one to the contrary. Least I admit a Bias.

 

[ntdz]

Nice Q&A, very non-partisan and informing.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: OS
...
"It's not just how many, it's who, and what kind of skill sets they have," said Maj. Gen. David B. Poythress, Georgia's commander. "When both my MP companies are gone, I don't have any MPs to put on the street."
...

Good job of turning Zebo's post into a supported counter-argument.

Taking the states' MPs, pilots, and equipment does seem like it may have contributed to the problems, unless the states / guard units dropped the ball on training replacements and resupplying equipment, figuring they could let needs slide until guardsmen returned home.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: yllus
With an extraordinarily high amount of misinformation circulating about the crisis in New Orleans, I thought I might try to do something helpful for once and write out a consolidated question and answer post about what's gone on in Louisiana lately.


Q: Was FEMA meant to head up this relief effort?
A: The typical role of the agency is to take a secondary role and provide assistance, specialized equipment and financial aid to local and state agencies. In case of a disaster local and state authorities are supposed to start reeling off orders out of a playbook drawn up years in advance. FEMA then coordinates cross-state or city efforts and the like. I think a lot of people put an unholy amount of trust and credit to the federal government of the United States, but there are clearly drawn up lines of authority that it simply is not allowed to cross. On an immediate basis, this is a local and state issue. (Source: Chicago Tribune)

I am wondering how you draw the conclusion that FEMA's role is to take a secondary role and provide assistance. From the article you quoted:

FEMA's typical role in a disaster is to augment local and state response, but in a case this big the federal agency takes over.

 

[jpeyton]

$2.5 billion to shore up the levies seems like a bargain, doesn't it?

Certainly seems like a bargain compared to funding the war in Iraq for 3 weeks, or the billions it will take to rebuild N.O. AND the levies.

 

[mc6809e]

$2.5 billion to shore up the levies seems like a bargain, doesn't it?

Why should the federal government pay for New Orleans' levees?

I guess Democrats should have a new slogan: "Can't someone else do it?"

The Louisiana Superdome Cost $163 million to build in 1975. The Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, a state entity, was built in 1985. It was expanded in 1999, and the state just completed negotiations for a new 500,000 square foot expansion. The state signed a contract for the new expansion on Aug. 17, just 12 days before Katrina hit. The price: $315 million. Construction would have begun years ago, for a cost of $275 million, but for some delays. There was a legal dispute over the contract in 2003, then in 2004 Gov. Kathleen Blanco tried to combine the expansion with a new stadium to replace the Superdome.

Seems to me New Orleans and the State of Louisiana were more interested in providing people with circuses instead of better levees.

 

[dmcowen674]

Sadly another thread and posts of disinformation cleverly selected by the Apologists Machine.

Those so called "answers" by the Chicago Tribune are bumpkus.

I expect the local Times Picayune to counter the apparent Illinois Apologists.

I sincerely hope this goes a long way in waking the sheeple up from their stuper and realize the degree of incompetence they allowed to be in power.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: mc6809e

$2.5 billion to shore up the levies seems like a bargain, doesn't it?

Why should the federal government pay for New Orleans' levees?

I guess Democrats should have a new slogan: "Can't someone else do it?"

The Louisiana Superdome Cost $163 million to build in 1975. The Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, a state entity, was built in 1985. It was expanded in 1999, and the state just completed negotiations for a new 500,000 square foot expansion. The state signed a contract for the new expansion on Aug. 17, just 12 days before Katrina hit. The price: $315 million. Construction would have begun years ago, for a cost of $275 million, but for some delays. There was a legal dispute over the contract in 2003, then in 2004 Gov. Kathleen Blanco tried to combine the expansion with a new stadium to replace the Superdome.

Seems to me New Orleans and the State of Louisiana were more interested in providing people with circuses instead of better levees.

Billions for offense, but not one cent for our own people who actually pay for all this, that's the theme of neocons in general. Never even heard of them asking for "donations" for the war. They just spent that money like water, lied about the amount, spent on a credit card, but they can't suffer to sign a dime over to the US citizens and go hat in hand begging like some salvation army crew.

I can't think of a actual better DEFENSIVE spending than shoring up levee. Compared to chaseing mythical theats 10000miles away in an OFFENSIVE and illegal which buys us nothing but more people gunning for us and a few thousand dead young men and women. Not only does it really defend peoples lives and property it defends a large economic lifeline to our nation in both refinery capability and transport of goods.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: luigi1
Nicely done, well thought out, and reasonably non partisan. The question is what would need to be in place to have gotten these people bottled water within at least within 3 days? Identifying and evacuation those who are sick/need medical attention being the next layer of the onion. And getting the guard on the street corner to inforce martial law. Ill guess 3 days but sooner is prefired. And I dont expect you to answer, rather as discussion points for the assembled. Again thank you I didnt see anything there I disagreed strongly with.

A person has to take some responsibility for his/her self. I would have carried in beef jerky (light weight protien) and bottled water. I would have carried a couple of purification devices too. All of those things are easy to get and cheap.

If you could stay at home that would have worked. If you had to abandon your house you might not have been able to take that stuff with you??

You might also have needed a gun/bat or something to keep someone else from taking it from you. That is where the FEMA mucked it up. When the levee broke, the whole nature of the disaster changed.