The extended rant rolls on thanks to Kevin Drum
For a few days I did not read any of the major blogs I usually read, but today I surfed over to Political Animal and found a veritable plethora of useful information. I especially liked a September 6 post by Kevin Drum entitled "Bush and Katrina." Kevin has a documented timeline showing how FEMA has been turned into FUBAR by Bush. The concluding paragraphs concisely make a point that I now do not have to write:
So: A crony with no relevant experience was installed as head of FEMA. Mitigation budgets for New Orleans were slashed even though it was known to be one of the top three risks in the country. FEMA was deliberately downsized as part of the Bush administration's conservative agenda to reduce the role of government. After DHS was created, FEMA's preparation and planning functions were taken away.(emphasis added). Actions do indeed have consequences, but what continually astounds me about the Bush administration is that it almost always takes actions which ignore the obvious possible consequences. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this kind of conduct at the least constitutes criminal negligence.
Actions have consequences. No one could predict that a hurricane the size of Katrina would hit this year, but the slow federal response when it did happen was no accident. It was the result of four years of deliberate Republican policy and budget choices that favor ideology and partisan loyalty at the expense of operational competence. It's the Bush administration in a nutshell.
posted by WCharles @ 9/06/2005 01:44:00 PM
12 Comments:
Why the focus on NO? It was reported during the day that fateful Monday that the storm actually shifted and MS took a bigger hit than Louisianna. Sure NO was wiped out, but so were MS towns. Gone. Annihilated. Flattened. Yet we don't hear complaints about response in MS. Well, not to the same degree. Perhaps MS leadership took better care of their citizens?
Another interesting perspective:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050906.shtml
Why focus on New Orleans? There are several reasons.
1) In terms of the national economy (shipping, oil refineries, etc.), New Orleans is vital to that economy while the coasts of Mississippi and Alabama are not. Thus, damage to New Orleans--and trying to respond to any damage--is vital to national interests in a way that exceeds the same in Mississippi and Alabama.
2) The population of the New Orleans area is far greater than that in the other areas.
3) While the devastation in Gulfport, Biloxi,and parts of Alabama was horrific, those areas did not suffer flooding like that that hit New Orleans.
4) Because of the flooding, scores of people died in New Orleans in the days after the storm. That did not happen in Mississippi and Alabama.
5) Given 3, it was much easier to get into the affected areas in Mississippi and Alabama.
6) It has been known for years that a hurricane hit on New Orleans would be particularly devastating.
7) The leadership in Mississippi has not had to deal with the same set of problems as those in Louisiana.
I'm sure I could come up with some more reasons.
Moreover, I have not focused solely on New Orleans. As I said in the previous post, "By Monday afternoon, there is no way that he was unaware of the damage caused by Katrina--not just in New Orleans, but in the other areas of the Gulf Coast that were devastated. And yet, he decided it was far more important to go to San Diego to deliver a speech that was more about the war on terror than VJ Day."
Well, I certainly won't invite my buddy from MS to read your last post. He would be highly offended. :-)
I have plenty of relatives in Mississippi (though in the center and northeast portions of the state), so you can tell your friend that I prefer Mississippi over New Orleans.
I don't want to seem like I am trivializing the damage in Mississippi. The coastal area of the state is going to have a tough time economically, for the casinos and resorts really revitalized that area. The economy is Mississippi was also helped greatly by the resorts and casinos. However, in terms of the national economy, New Orleans is more important.
This is unrelated to this thread, but if you want to read an anti-strong central government perspective on rebuilding NO, go to this link:
http://www.riverrant.com/index_files/Page579.htm
This guy is a friend of mine, and his site is one of the links listed on my main page.
Ah... your last sentence says volumes. It's not about the suffering of the people, it's about economy. BTW, I have a somewhat unfair advantage knowing more about you from your postings and your bio you give. Besides being a bass tbn player, my day job is Human Resource Director for an electronics contract manufacturer. And you may find it interesting that one of the products we assemble is electronic voting machines. But, you have the unfair advantage of being a lawyer.
Anyway, being more concerned about the economic impact of the after effects of the storm over the people impact sounds very republican.
Focusing on the economic impact deals with your question of why focus on New Orleans. It does not mean that I care more about the economic impact than the human factors.
Furthermore, the economic impact has a direct relation to the people impact.
And as for me sounding very Republican, I resemble that remark. :-)
Oh, wait a minute...by saying "I resemble that remark" I am certainly sounding like George W. Bush. ;-)
Are you sure you didn't mean you dissemble that remark? By that I mean that remark dissembles you. Dick! Dick!!! What did I mean to say?
I certainly understood your meaning, but for benefit of the oh so many people I am sure are reading our discussion, I wanted to provide some explanation so they could correctly interpret the discourse between us. :-)
My MS buddy says all bananas that enter the country come through Gulfport, MS. That's pretty significant.
Post a Comment
<< Home