Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« September 2005 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Misc.
Poker
Politics
Religion
Television
Sleepless in Fulham: Rambling and gambling by David Young
Wednesday, 7 September 2005
Katrina and the blame game.
Topic: Politics
I've been asked by a few people to remark about the disaster in New Orleans. It's a fair request, given my remarks at the end of last year that democracies with free economies are best suited to coping with natural disasters. I still stand by that as far as earthquakes are concerned. And I note that flood warnings did exist and that sea defences did too, except that they were inadequate for the task faced. But something has clearly gone wrong in Louisiana. What lessons can be learned?

To respond to that, I'm going to turn to a Norwegian neo-con friend who writes under the name 'Vampus'. In a recent post titled 'Blame Bush first', she explains that ..., well I'm not sure exactly what she does say, since I can't speak Norwegian. But when I asked her to outline the argument, she wrote back to tell me this:

I wrote about Katrina and Bush on VamPus-blog (Blame Bush first), as the Norwegian media is blaming Bush for just about everything. According to the guidelines of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the local authorities can not expect federal help before after 72-96 hours after a disaster. Which means local authorities needs to plan and execute emergency help locally. - New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin has pointed at Washington and Bush, blaming them for the poor execution of help. Lets look at another example: the former Mayor of New York, Guiliani, was a national hero after the 9/11-attacs. He showed leadership by continous communication in media, by going to Ground Zero and by taking responsibilty. But what made him a great leader is that he had planned for all of this in advance. Nobody could know that two planes would crash into the world trade centre - but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that NY is a target - or that a bit city can suffer from a natural disaster, fire, communication break down, what have you. Guiliani had led the work of organizing the units (police, fire dep, goverment & emergency rooms) in case of crisis. When it actually happened, they were prepared. THAT made Guiliani a great leader.

What the fuck has Mr. Nagin done? He was, by the way, the candidate for Republicans but switched to Democrats when it turned out he had better chances of winning the election of Mayor with them in 2002. That alone sums up what an unprincipled creep that guy is. "Everyone" has known that New Orleans is prone to be hit by storms and hurricanes. New Orleans had plans, but Nagin disregarded their own plan although he was encouraged to do so. The plans say that evacuation should happen 72 hours before the hurricane is expected, and forced evacuation 48 hours before. Nagin waited until last minute.

The guvernor of Louisiana declared the state a disaster area on Friday August 26, 2 days before Katrina hit New Orleans, but didn't order an evacuation until Sunday AFTER Bush had strongly encouraged her to do so. Since the local authoraties were so apathic the federal government wanted to take control over the situation September 2 - but this was refused by Guvernor Blanco (I don't need to say which party SHE represents, right?).

Anyway - the Dome was not filled with necessary supplies for the refugees (again, local responsibility), they didn't use local transportation to get the poor out of the area (local responsibility), local authoraties has done little to crack down on crime - so these idiots that people are trying to help, shoots at the rescue team. Now, there is a reason why these people are poor - they are too friggin stupid to understand their own good.

Oh, my God. I'm turning into a SuperBitch with no feelings for humanity. Oh, well. Whatever..

Bush is an idiot in many ways - I mean, what kind of guy walks into a disaster area with a grin in his face with bodies literarily floating next to him. He is not a great communicator (like our hero of all times, Reagan), but give me a break. He has already given $80 billion to the rescue work, urged in the national guard, urged the city to get it's people out etc. What you can blame him for, is reducing federal funds for the rebuilding of the levees - but even engineers say that even if they'd had all the money in the world, they wouldn't have it ready in time.

So people say that this isn't a time to argue about who's fault it is, while they are pointing at Bush, because some voices are saying that the local government failed. Well, you know - Blame Bush First - who cares about facts anyway...

Erm.. a bit long, yes. But I get angry just writing about it...

Wednesday, 7 September 2005 - 2:28 PM BST

Name: jamie

And she was going so well until she revealed her true colours ...

"Now, there is a reason why these people are poor - they are too friggin stupid to understand their own good."

Yikes!

To paraphrase the Nordic Eva Braun, why bother with facts when you've already made your mind up about an entire stratum of society, each and everyone of whom is "stupid".



Wednesday, 7 September 2005 - 3:25 PM BST

Name: VamPus
Home Page: http://vampus.blogspot.com

Jamie, darlin'!

Can you give me one reason - just one, I'm not demanding - why any sane person would take out a gun and start shooting at rescue personell. And the situation I'm referring to here, is when a rescue helicopter tried to help wounded children out of the hospital. Wounded children!? Now, VamPus is not particularily fond of the snotty little things, but even I get angry seeing that.

So if say stupid things in a heated blogg - well, I appologise, I shouldn't have said that particular thing. BUT; If you ever see me shooting at people trying to rescue a wounded child, you hereby have my permission to shoot ME!

Wednesday, 7 September 2005 - 3:33 PM BST

Name: VamPus

Uhm, yes - and Eva Braun might have been blond, but she wasn't nordic...but I guess I deserved that for that one comment. The rest I still stand for..

Wednesday, 7 September 2005 - 3:37 PM BST

Name: jamie

No, I've no idea why any sane person would start shooting at rescue personnel. Perhaps they weren't sane.

I was unable to figure out why you assumed that the reason people were poor was because they were stupid.

Logically, that would mean that anyone who is rich is not stupid and I've met enough wealthy idiots to know that's not the case.

Wednesday, 7 September 2005 - 3:48 PM BST

Name: David Young

The Mayor of New Orleans has this to say:

"And one of the things people -- nobody's talked about this. Drugs flowed in and out of New Orleans and the surrounding metropolitan area so freely it was scary to me, and that's why we were having the escalation in murders. People don't want to talk about this, but I'm going to talk about it. You have drug addicts that are now walking around this city looking for a fix, and that's the reason why they were breaking in hospitals and drugstores. They're looking for something to take the edge off of their jones, if you will. And right now, they don't have anything to take the edge off. And they've probably found guns. So what you're seeing is drug-starving crazy addicts, drug addicts, that are wrecking havoc."

If I didn't tell you this was said by the mayor, would you ever guess that this was so? He makes it sound like all of this is someone else's problem.

Wednesday, 7 September 2005 - 9:06 PM BST

Name: TRS

Sorry to push things back on track, but none of this bears on whether "free economies are best suited to coping with natural disasters". You've just gone straight into defending Bush, and blaming another american politician.


Its rather trivial to highlight that a rich country should cope better than a poorer country, ceteris paribus, when faced with a disaster.

The fact is, the response to Katrina was a complete fuck-up - with possibly tens of thousands of avoidable deaths. It could conceivably have been worse, but there are many poorer countries that would have coped far better.

Whoever you want to blame, this really was a shameful affair.

Thursday, 8 September 2005 - 11:20 AM BST

Name: paul m

It doesn't become you putting this kind of stuff up on your site, David. You're a thoughtful man - you and I would differ on almost every political issue imaginable, but your arguments are rational and coherent. When you quote other sources approvingly, they're usually in the same vein. But that isn't true on this occasion. This is a gob of bile from Vampus - defensive, obviously, and therefore offensive in the ways that neo-cons tend to be when the world doesn't bend to their desires, but also ill-informed, unhelpful and, frankly, just a bit stupid. You're better than this. If you have a policy of not taking posts down once they're up, then it would be better if you'd supply your own commentary on the situation and on her diatribe.

Thursday, 8 September 2005 - 1:27 PM BST

Name: David Young

"defensive, obviously, and therefore offensive in the ways that neo-cons tend to be when the world doesn't bend to their desires"

It's intended to be defensive - she's defending President Bush against unfair criticism in the Norwegian media. If it's 'ill-informed', could you please explain which bits are factually incorrect? It would lend weight to your claims. How dare you insult her and her piece without coming back with a single shred of information to disprove what she's said? She's gone to the trouble of finding out a lot of background information. What have you done?

DY

Thursday, 8 September 2005 - 2:44 PM BST

Name: paul m

We've all had the opportunity to gather information about the disaster in New Orleans - there's been more than enough journalism to give us the 'facts'. When I wrote that Vampus was 'ill-informed', I should have been more precise. I meant that the 'facts' she has recruited, including the 'background information' that you're so impressed with, are so unstable and so prejudicially framed by her as to be useless at best, devious at worst. What are we to make of statements like: 'He was, by the way, the candidate for Republicans but switched to Democrats when it turned out that he had better chances of winning the election ... in 2002.' Does that read like a reliable piece of reportage; is there any distinction in that statement between the 'fact' it states and the insinuation it wants to make? How about 'I don't need to say what party SHE represents, right?' How about her comments on the people shooting at the rescue teams? Here, she is ill-informed in the proper sense, as are we all. The media have reported that incident without any attempt to understand what its dynamics may have been. It's bewildering, but I don't think Vampus's explanation - that they're 'friggin stupid' - is quite getting to the heart of things, do you? What I'm imagining is that there is a reconfiguration of topographical, social and economic space following a disaster like this, so that those who have a mind to do so can attempt something like a local coup, marking out a territory for exploitation, a territory they'll defend. I'm guessing they're behaving as if the familiar laws do not apply in a survival situation like this, and that they imagine they're taking over. Also, notions of private property are altered, so that those who have nothing gain the opportunity to take things that ordinarily would not be available to them. (It's possible that that may extend to women, and hence to the alleged rapes in the superdome, which are reported just as blithely as the shootings but in fact are just as in need of explanation.)

Anyway, it just doesn't seem interesting, helpful or intelligent to me to be arguing about Republicans versus Democrats when what we're witnessing in Louisiana is an exposure of the socio-economic and racial geography of the US that has been decades in the making. I don't care so much whether Bush got down there in time and what he did there; I do care that he is an agent of the cultural and political establishment that has ignored the South for so long and has, in doing so, enabled this disaster to have such terrible consequences. That same establishment will, I promise you, try to forget the South again once Katrina has blown over. One of the few hopeful things to come out of this whole affair is that they may not be allowed to.

Thursday, 8 September 2005 - 3:17 PM BST

Name: jamie

Can I just stick my oar in again.

When she states: "According to the guidelines of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the local authorities can not expect federal help before after 72-96 hours after a disaster."

She ignores the fact that Bush declared states of emergency in Louisiana Mississippi, Florida and Alabama, BEFORE the hurricane hit.

Before flooding started, Head of FEMA Michael Brown claimed: "Today show that his agency had "planned for this kind of disaster for many years because we've always known about New Orleans' situation."

FEMA had medical teams, rescue squads and groups prepared to supply food and water poised in a semicircle around the city, he claimed before the breach of the levees. They failed to deliver.

All her rant demonstrates is her prejudices. Rather than ask what went wrong, she's asked herself: "How can I absolve Bush and my beloved neo-cons from any blame in this fiasco?".

Thursday, 8 September 2005 - 4:39 PM BST

Name: David Young

I'm confused. Are you saying that the federal authorities did MORE than they were required to?

Thursday, 8 September 2005 - 5:19 PM BST

Name: jamie

No, I'm suggesting that the Federal authorities were not obliged - as she claimed - to wait for 72-96 hours before they intervened.

By declaring a state of emergency, Bush authorised federal officials to coordinate all disaster relief efforts. This contradicts her assertion that local officials were to blame.

The quotes about FEMA's readiness came from Michael Brown before New Orleans flooded. Then, when the waters came, they failed to deliver on their promises.

Thursday, 8 September 2005 - 8:04 PM BST

Name: Juliette

If you pass responsibility down then you have to make sure that there's also accountability back upwards and this level of accountability needs to in proportion to the level of responsibility. In this case, the level of responsibility in planning for such an event was massive, so there should also have been equivalent accountability back to Bush. (Of course legally this may not have been possible, but if that was the case, then the law needed to be changed).

Thursday, 22 September 2005 - 1:40 PM BST

Name: Adam

Look there is enough blame to go around. However just to gain a few additional debating points I will say this. Some dear friends of mine were in New Orleans 3 days before Katrina hit and the local authorities had a surplus of transport available for people to take out of the city, trains and busses.

People werent taking them, when asked it was a mix of fatalism (wont be too bad) and an unwilingness to leave their homes for the inevitable looting.

Now onto FEMA.....NOT ONE PERSON in the senior positions there has ANY EXPERIENCE with emergency management and they are all Bush political appointees.

But I suppose that isnt Bush's fault either?

When Katrina hit where was the President....in San Diego at a fundraiser.

Bush's support doesnt come from ideologues any more, it comes from people that are unable to say 'Gee you know what, I was wrong about this dude'.

Suffice to say after all the fear mongering that came after 9-11 and helped push the US and UK into Iraq-Nam I will say this.....how prepared was the US to handle a catastrophe after all that harping on about the Dept of Homeland Security and the curtailing of individual freedoms. As they proved they were no more capable of handling a disaster than they were prior to 9-11.

Shameful, absolutely shameful. I dont know how you wrong-wingers can sleep at nights.



View Latest Entries