Accusations mounting with the death toll, I know only one of those two will become a fixed number in the near future, and that I can only participate in the investigation of the other. Having said that, I found a comment on a winger
site that actually helped bring the Bush supporters' position into focus.
From Sophonisba:
“...New Orleans being my one-time home, this is so close to my heart and I am so tired of hearing people politicize it, and I would like to set a few people straight on things that I know about personally that they might not realize...people they might just shut up and listen to someone who has some experience in an area that they know nothing about other than what the media or their part leaders tell them. But probably not:
"Where's the national guard?"
They're already there, jerk. I know because my sister's boyfriend is there. Not just heading a relief operation now though, are they -- no, they are thrown into the middle of a bloody urban warfare zone. Now I know that none of us can fully comprehend what those people are going through, but I do know what it was like daily in New Orleans, and I am disappointed but not surprised by the behavior. And before anyone gets all self-righteous, there is a BIG BIG difference between being desperate and looting food which, by the way, pretty much everyone says anyone is welcome to and even encouraged to do at this point, and sniping at doctors trying to evacuate patients, so you can get the gas from the ambulance or whatever! No excuse for adding to the death toll! Let's just see what happens when, God forbid, our own National Guard are forced to fire on private American citizens because they have become completely out of control and the death of one is preferable to the deaths of many. I just hope to God it's not my kind, gentle friend who is forced to pull that trigger.
"Why is it taking so long to restore order? "
Two answers:
1)New Orleans always totters on the brink of order at any time. What tourists see and what they show on the news during Mardi Gras is a tiny tiny surface of the city. Tensions there are high -- racial tensions, socio-economic tensions, etc. It's sad but very very true. What is happening now was predicted by anyone who knew the city. Predicted but not, obviously, welcomed.
2)Also, there is no firm command there at this time. No, I don't mean the President should go swooping in with a bullhorn as Michael Moore so idiotically suggested. Not only would having the presidential entourage there be a stupid burden, President Bush knows nothing about the city. The New Orleans police department is the best crowd-control unit in the WORLD! Why is more not being done? THEY HAVE NO LEADERSHIP! Mayor Nagin, who I earnestly believed was a good choice for Mayor at the time of his election, being better by leaps and bounds than his ridiculously corrupt Fat Cat predecessor, has failed his city in its time of need. The command position cannot be filled by FEMA, by the President, by a National Guard commander. It must be filled by a New Orleans Giuliano, someone who knows the people and their city, who has their trust (Nagin was widely liked across the board, at least for a time) and can rally them, and he has not done this job. And when I say "know the city," it means more than having a touchy-feely understanding of the economics, culture, etc., it means knowing where the high ground is -- what is likely to be dry. Where there are likely to be more people trapped because of the demographics of an area, where looters might target because of pockets of affluence or of commerce. Where the best evacuation routes are because the roads are slightly higher than others, what areas might have been hit less hard (ire. the West Bank) and what sort of aid people might find there. There's a learning curve to things like this, and without an experienced leader, the police and other officials of New Orleans are floundering, some even deserting. And who can blame them? They too are foodless and waterless, and beaten down by the ineffective nature of their efforts which, in a disorganized, disjointed fashion cannot serve the needs of their people, who they no doubt desperately care about. I do not like to point blaming fingers in a situation like this, but I become increasingly frustrated with Nagin.
"What if this had been a terrorist attack, like a dirty bomb? What's Bush been doing for the past four years?"
Good point. What if it had? Probably it would run much like this...as happens when there is no previous experience with something. You can plan, plan, plan your life away, but there is not way to understand the contingencies of a situation that has never before been faced. Your greatest plans are likely to crumble under realities you never considered. Not because you are a poor planner, or did not invest the time, but because there is simply no way of divining the future in a situation such as this. Again, heavier blame to the local government is due, rather than to the federal. Going to the Superdome in the storm seems to have been the extent of the plan. Then sit back and wait to be rescued. Excuse me, but WHAT? The people who live in and know the city should have had a better plan than that! Like a pedestrian evacuation route planned. Why sit in 100+ degree heat in the Superdome with dead and dying bodies when the able-bodied can start hoofing it, slowly of course, out of the city. Not even necessarily far, just to an area with lower water and fewer people, and where relief can more easily meet them. Also, this would help the rescue workers realize where the worst-case victims were -- still at the Superdome (the very elderly, sick, etc.). Just yesterday Nagin finally suggested that those in the Convention Center move across the Mississippi Bridge to the West Bank -- should this not have been a suggestion earlier?
Again, though, I am not there and so the specifics will continue to elude me no matter how well I know the city -- maybe there are good reasons these particular things were not done -- maybe water on the West Bank just went down -- who knows, (we don't hear much about the less-glamorous but heavily-populated side of the river). Regardless, the point remains that there should have been more of a plan in place at the city level. Does Bush have a plan for each and every one of the citizens in my home town should terrorists attack an important plant there? No. Do I expect him to? No.
"Who appointed incompetents to run FEMA?"
This I have to admit I know nothing about, but I doubt they are incompetent. Just faced with an unprecedented challenge that some people seem to think can be cleaned up with a Swiffer and a few apples and juice boxes to hand out. Get a realistic perspective please.
"Who cut the budgets for flood control in New Orleans? I'm running out of fingers to point and I'm just getting started challenging this administration to tell me what they've been doing with all that money."
What money? WHAT MONEY? Even at a bar last night I had to field this question from those knowing my roots in NOLA. "Why oh why did the evil Bush Administration cut funding to raise the levees in New Orleans?!?" Main point to be made: It wouldn't have made a freakin' difference! The levees did not simply get topped by water because they were too short, they were demolished in some areas by the strength of the storm surge. Money to raise the levees may be nice, but the only sure cure for the destruction of a Cat 5 would have been to raise the city! No one expected the fed or local government to pursue a fairytale like that! We in New Orleans have always known, from childhood or the time the first hurricane season of your citizenship rolls around, that a hurricane of this magnitude would swamp the city regardless of precautions taken. Regardless of the levees. Regardless of the pumps. Regardless of our best efforts. Its' the price of living in that spot. The fact that it didn't happen for hundreds of years is moot, and lucky.
Should, God forbid, the Big One ever hit California and a large section of Los Angeles plunge into the ocean, will people be clamoring for heads in the government, saying that someone should have figured out exactly where it was going to strike, and when, and preemptively installed giant metal bands to hold the affected area in place? Sounds ridiculous, but that seems to be what people expected of the miracle-working engineers of the New Orleans levees. No federal funding, or state funding, or local funding, could have prevented what happened. Call it a Natural Disaster. Call it an Act of God. Call it a tragedy, a nightmare, a horror, but don't try to blame it on anyone. It's pathetic and petty."
"Where were the LA National Guard? Why is it taking so long to restore order? What if this were a terrorist attack; where is evidence of the last four year's supposed planning? Is an incompetent running FEMA? Why were flood control budgets cut?"
Answers running counter to hers only add detail to the picture shaping up. For example, just because her National Guard relative was present didn't mean all National Guardsmen were available. We know they weren't. We know almost 40% of the Louisianna state's Guardsmen are committed to Iraq.
Excusing the absence--not just lack--of federal planning (had this been a terrorist attack) as NOT relevant to the type of destruction in NO, is missing the point. First, a category 3 or better hurricane in this city has been among the top three KNOWN risks to national cities for decades. It is why flood-control planning and budget appropriations were critical, necessary and expected. Budget cuts irresponsibly raised the risks, especially since it was more likely a natural disaster would hit NO than a terrorist attack (after all, we did elect the only candidate who veritably promised to keep terrorists out of the country by fighting them “over there”).
Second, I definitely don't buy the “Nobody could know” excuse at all. Climate models have been predicting storm outcomes for decades. Computers that can crunch probabilities into realms of physical unimaginability can surely be put to use to crunch the likely possibilities of known city weaknesses against factors like terrain, weather, topography, traffic flow, chemical and water plants—you name it. Results perfect? No. Results probable? Yes. That the federal government has clearly NOT done disaster scenarios this far after 9/11, and created at least the shred of a plan, is inexcusable. Utterly inexcusable.
Lastly, Sophonisba did not address the wetland development that probably contributed to higher water levels. Perhaps that was an issue of which she was just unaware.
On the other hand, our commenter also raised this valid and important point: city and state responsibility; the mayor knows his people, geography and culture. Where—and what—were his plans? He has culpability. In fact, all mayors of large cities now do.
It's true, 9/11 changed everything. We think in terms of “What if this had been...? We, The People, are going to have to demand more from our local leaders. We can see the federal government can and may fail us. Our local leaders should be our first, not last, line of defense. And each one of us; do we know our city vulnerabilities? Do we have personal family escape plans and contingencies? Water, gas and short-waves in the garages? An emergency bag packed and ready to go?
Another point; location risk. I don't live on coastal California for a reason. Maybe I wouldn't have lived in New Orleans either (had I ever been there and seen the danger). How much responsibility do we take, individual and shared, living in environmentally or strategically dangerous places? Is it realistic in the 21st century to live with these risks when we know our democratic government and free-market economic systems do
not reward prudent, cost-intensive, disaster contingency planning?
And just philisophically speaking, most Americans can't even control their addictions to dangerous personal behavior, like smoking and diet. How can we control our addiction to making risky choices like living location? Do we want to?
Clearly we have elected a president who advocates personal choice and responsibility (except where he thinks religious morality should interfere) but seriously, who are we kidding? If we want risk control and real federal level protection we are going to have to accept--and elect--a kind of “nanny” culture and administration currently (seemingly) despised.
We can't have it both ways folks--national 'protection by' and personal 'protection from' administration policies; the hand that rocks the political cultural cradle, rules the white house. Choose wisely or drown.
