Saturday, September 03, 2005
'When called, we'll answer': God bless the Boston Police for heading to New Orleans. ... They better be prepared: Another group of Massachusetts emergency personnel stopped in their tracks when other relief workers were attacked by mobs. Repeat: attacked. ...
FYI: I made a quickie correction to the post. It was other relief-worker groups that were attacked. Same difference though: It's dangerous down there.
'Irreparable damage'?: The criticism is mounting. But I happen to agree with Harvard's Barbara Kellerman that people are writing Bush off way too early. He came through in 2001. He can do it now. ... FYI: As frustrated and angry as I get over the bungled response to Katrina, I keep having to remind myself about the following:
1.) This catastrophe was an act of God.
2.) Therefore placing blame for the damage is mind-boggling. New Orleans was a doomed city waiting for centuries for a tragedy like this to happen. Criticizing President Bush and others for inadequate pre-storm levee work etc. is akin, in my mind, to dragging Andrew Jackson and Huey Long into the argument.
3.) Criticism of post-storm ineptness is fair game.
4.) Local authorities, while clearly overwhelmed by the magnitude of the carnage, clearly had grossly inadequate response plans in place. The Superdome and stranded school buses are now monuments to that failure.
5.) The overall federal response, while understandably slow in the initial stage (and we were all caught off-guard as the 'slow motion' drama began to unfold Monday and Tuesday morning), is a disgrace. Mike Brown is a walking and talking monument to negligence. For this, Bush can and will be rightly blamed.
So that's my reality-check checklist, for what it's worth.
'Leaves one speechless': Reader No. 1:
"The FEMA head story you cite below leaves one speechless. To answer your question, yes, the President will hold someone responsible - but it won't make anyone feel any better about the whole situation.
"The private sector certainly can play - must play - a role in disaster recovery (not just rebuilding everything). But expecting that to happen contradicts the inherent longstanding Democratic Faith in government to solve all ills (and faith is the right word), and it contradicts the 20+-year-long Republican strategy to control state and federal government (which gives us Deficits As Far As the Eye Can See, Compassionate Conservatism, No Child Left Behind supervision in the leafy suburbs, the 'Intelligence Czar,' patronage appointments, and we have seen where that all leads...)
"Very bad sign: just overheard a Fox anchor say that someone in Congress has called for a Federal Secretary of Disaster Relief. Book the Rose Garden ceremony now for Thanksgiving week...
"One other point: a Compassionate Conservative might propose this compromise on people who lost their homes in the flood: if you didn't have flood coverage (most don't), we'll cover you anyways if you agree to MOVE to high and dry land (of which there is plenty in the United States outside of the Blue States). This would be a less objectionable way to subsidize risky behavior and shafting policyholders. Of course, Liberal Dems will oppose increasing population (and therefore Congressional seats) in the Red States, and Compassionate Conservatives probably don't want to ask people to leave their homes."
FYI -- After the Mississippi floods in the early '90s, the government did just that: flood insurance to rebuild homes -- somewhere else. Entire towns were relocated to higher ground.
FYI: I made a quickie correction to the post. It was other relief-worker groups that were attacked. Same difference though: It's dangerous down there.
'Irreparable damage'?: The criticism is mounting. But I happen to agree with Harvard's Barbara Kellerman that people are writing Bush off way too early. He came through in 2001. He can do it now. ... FYI: As frustrated and angry as I get over the bungled response to Katrina, I keep having to remind myself about the following:
1.) This catastrophe was an act of God.
2.) Therefore placing blame for the damage is mind-boggling. New Orleans was a doomed city waiting for centuries for a tragedy like this to happen. Criticizing President Bush and others for inadequate pre-storm levee work etc. is akin, in my mind, to dragging Andrew Jackson and Huey Long into the argument.
3.) Criticism of post-storm ineptness is fair game.
4.) Local authorities, while clearly overwhelmed by the magnitude of the carnage, clearly had grossly inadequate response plans in place. The Superdome and stranded school buses are now monuments to that failure.
5.) The overall federal response, while understandably slow in the initial stage (and we were all caught off-guard as the 'slow motion' drama began to unfold Monday and Tuesday morning), is a disgrace. Mike Brown is a walking and talking monument to negligence. For this, Bush can and will be rightly blamed.
So that's my reality-check checklist, for what it's worth.
'Leaves one speechless': Reader No. 1:
"The FEMA head story you cite below leaves one speechless. To answer your question, yes, the President will hold someone responsible - but it won't make anyone feel any better about the whole situation.
"The private sector certainly can play - must play - a role in disaster recovery (not just rebuilding everything). But expecting that to happen contradicts the inherent longstanding Democratic Faith in government to solve all ills (and faith is the right word), and it contradicts the 20+-year-long Republican strategy to control state and federal government (which gives us Deficits As Far As the Eye Can See, Compassionate Conservatism, No Child Left Behind supervision in the leafy suburbs, the 'Intelligence Czar,' patronage appointments, and we have seen where that all leads...)
"Very bad sign: just overheard a Fox anchor say that someone in Congress has called for a Federal Secretary of Disaster Relief. Book the Rose Garden ceremony now for Thanksgiving week...
"One other point: a Compassionate Conservative might propose this compromise on people who lost their homes in the flood: if you didn't have flood coverage (most don't), we'll cover you anyways if you agree to MOVE to high and dry land (of which there is plenty in the United States outside of the Blue States). This would be a less objectionable way to subsidize risky behavior and shafting policyholders. Of course, Liberal Dems will oppose increasing population (and therefore Congressional seats) in the Red States, and Compassionate Conservatives probably don't want to ask people to leave their homes."
FYI -- After the Mississippi floods in the early '90s, the government did just that: flood insurance to rebuild homes -- somewhere else. Entire towns were relocated to higher ground.
