Who's in charge here? Reflections on disaster response

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: PatrickHenry People are told what to think. Most are willing to be led...

And my point is, it's their fault when something bad happens to them because of it.

[Mia]

Who's in charge? Ummmm, maybe the PRESIDENT? He oversees all the people in charge of all the various things. The buck stops there, and he's broke, obviously. ***wipe.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Mia Who's in charge? Ummmm, maybe the PRESIDENT? He oversees all the people in charge of all the various things. The buck stops there, and he's broke, obviously. ***wipe.

Right, and how did he get in charge? People put him there.
And not just Republicans. Democrats, too. Anyone who has been cheering the growth of big government. To blame this on one man is ridiculous.

[Mia]

Fine, but you don't think he should cut through the red tape and take care of this? He's the only one who can.

[Morgan_Freeman]

I think anyone who can should do everything they can.

[Mia]

Me either - but do you, or do you not, think he could do this? It's a yes or no question.

Does he have the capability to issue an order that the situation get taken care of?

I know the answer....he can invade countries - he can handle a hurricane. If he gave a shit, that is.

But he doesn't give a shit about the poor peple affected most - that's the heart of the issue.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Mia Me either - but do you, or do you not, think he could do this? It's a yes or no question. Does he have the capability to issue an order that the situation get taken care of?

I honestly don't know. You may be right, Mia. I'm just warning you not to miss the forest for the trees.

[Mia]

I am not. I am pointing out that this man can get done what he WANTS to get done, and this obviously not on his list.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Charley Davis I agree with your assessment of the actions of the people of NYC. They did have a plan and they had one goal. The emergency there was restricted to a relatively small area.The people of that area knew not to keep all their eggs in one basket, and they came together for a common cause. Katrina is a totally different item.

No you miss the point entirely. There was no plan. The plan and the command center were buried when the buildings fell. Things came together better without a tight controls and red tape. FEMA has been actively blocking help from getting into the region with bureaucracy and incompetence.

And yes, Katrina is not comparable to 9/11 in geographic scope, if not necessarily in population involved. There were very different events.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Right, and how did he get in charge? People put him there. And not just Republicans. Democrats, too. Anyone who has been cheering the growth of big government. To blame this on one man is ridiculous.

That one man was instrumental in cutting FEMA money to repair the levees so he could have more for his ugly war.

Were it not for his war there would have been National Guard troops and equipment available a day or two sooner so something like 50,000 folks might not have been abandoned without food or water.

This man approved packing FEMA with political hacks and losers. Five of eight top FEMA appointees has zero disaster response experience. OK, now four of eight as "You are doing a heck of a job, Brownie" is gone.

Bush doesn't deserve all the blame but he deserves a hugh share.

Libertarian sniping about the growth of big government is fine, within limits, but even in a minarchist state, national defense, and that would include disaster recovery, is a proper function of government.

The problems with FEMA was that it didn't do its job and that it hindered or stopped others from rushing aid to those in need. They were a big part of the problem, not the solution.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Prometheus Well I have to warn you that as a libertarian, I have a very different idea of what exactly our government is supposed to protect up from. But that's a whole other debate.

I realize that paying attention might be too much trouble for you, but the problem is not that FEMA is helping people but that they are actvely stopping help from getting in.

And the "shit happens" attitude is why folks like yourself give the word "libertarian" such a bad name.

[Milton Bradley]

I'm concerned about how many in the media are in lockstep on this subject.


I am also going to predict that there will be many requests for the restructuring of FEMA, or perhaps requests for the creation of another agency who's authority will supercede FEMA's authority.


The establishment will use these opportunities to grow the beauracracy. The establishment will use these opportunities to move us closer to the Police State.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Prometheus I already explained my very good reasons for stating that anyone could have gotten out if they really wanted to.

Well golly gee, I guess that settles it.

Over 100,00 people didn't own cars.

New Orleans' own disaster response plan estimated that an evacuation would take 72 hours yet the Mayor only announced a mandatory evacutation only 24 hours before the storm hit. The one major highway out of town was jammed with those who had cars as the storm hit.

The plan was that New Orleans was going to mobilize city and school buses to transport people without transport. The buses never rolled.

And your " I have absolutely no pity for the people who didn't get out.... There was plenty of opportunity," well, to be charitable, is wildly misinformed. Your lack of pity is your own problem.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman If people had opposed it, it wouldn't have happened. That simple. The Prez can't just make anything he wants happen. There has to be popular support.

Again, I disagree. WE don't support anything directly. We support our respective senators and congressmen and they in turn are supposed to reflect the feelings of the people to the president. In reality though, we support our representatives and they rubber-stamp whatever Bush wants most of the time.

But I think there was a good deal of popular support for DHS anyway, which brings us back to the fact that a lot of people trust our government.
Those of us who saw no need for DHS had ZERO representation in this decision, as I'm sure you'll agree.

In fact, this is the myth behind "democracy". All government is democratic. A regime can't exist without popular support.

Like Josef Stalin's regime? Or Adolph Hitler's, or Fidel Castro's, or Pol Pot's, or Idi Amin's, or Saddam Hussein's, etc. etc..

And in the case of Uncle Sadd, why did we go over there to liberate the Iraqis from a guy with all that popular support anyway?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Right, and how did he get in charge? People put him there. And not just Republicans. Democrats, too. Anyone who has been cheering the growth of big government. To blame this on one man is ridiculous.

Bush is a figurehead in this respect. It's like blaming Ronald McDonald for your clogged arteries.

But Bush IS the president and to the people he represents the government, for good or bad. This is of course by design so the parties don't piss off the sheep too much because unlike the prez the members of Congress are not confined to two terms in office.
The president and his supporters are to blame for this misdirection too. They will gladly take credit for the sunny day and when it rains they blame it on Clinton.

[SteveA]

... or perhaps requests for the creation of another agency who's authority will supercede FEMA's authority.

Yes, all we need is just one more oversight commitee and we can finally rest assured in our security.

And the "shit happens" attitude is why folks like yourself give the word "libertarian" such a bad name.

And the "shit won't ever happen" attitude, "if we can just elect the right people" attempts have been tried for ages and aren't making any progress from what I see. Maybe if people "took care of their own shit" (or at least felt it was their responsibility instead of instinctively turning to someone else for a solution), it might get better.

There are plenty of conservatives that are just as guilty as liberals in saying they can fix things if only we'd trust them with the keys to the city. Meanwhile, we find our cities bankrupt and there are only 2 theaters playing the same Demican/Republicrat show.

Maybe it's time to let people try something different for a change. Einstein said you can't solve a long standing problem using the same line of thinking and these really aren't new issues.

And who do you think was most concerned about Katrina when it first showed up a category 1 drifting north in the Gulf? Was it FEMA and guys in D.C. or was it residents in New Orleans?

Assuming it was too late at that point to even prepare things in time, who could have helped more in minimizing the damage? People in D.C. or New Orleans if they had felt more personal control and responsibility in the issues?

Would it have been better for people in New Orleans to know "shit" was likely to happen or would you have recommended saying something more soothing until it was too late? Sure, I probably say things a bit harsher than I feel oftentimes, but it's only because we don't have enough people talking straight. It might not feel good to think that government might let us down in our education, economy or security, but it's better to do that than play follow the leader when there's a cliff ahead. I don't honestly believe many people could have forseen the damage done by Katrina, but it would have been more likely to have been forseen if people had placed greater trust and responsibility in themselves and their ability to control their environment than in society/democracy etc., and wait to be told what to do.

[RickSp]

Quote by: SteveA And the "shit won't ever happen" attitude, "if we can just elect the right people" attempts have been tried for ages and aren't making any progress from what I see. Maybe if people "took care of their own shit" (or at least felt it was their responsibility instead of instinctively turning to someone else for a solution), it might get better.

Great. Chest thumping individualism is a fine answer for preparing for natural disaster. Sure. No one on any side of the debate claims that electing the "right people" is the answer either. How do you propose "taking care of your own shit" when it comes to building a levee?

Ideology is no excuse for ignoring common sense.

[SteveA]

It so happens the levies were initially built by private enterprise but excluding that fact, how many people who relied on "public transportation" were able to escape safely? Or how many people who never felt there was any need to have an adequate supply of water saved up found a reason to suddenly see the sense of it? Ot how many people realized why libertarians often recommend having a method of self-defense (a.k.a. 2nd Amendment rights), when violence erupted?

It's simple. If people feel there are less safety nets, whether or not those nets exists in reality, they're less likely to need to use them and less likely to find one unavailable if they've lived under the pretense that few existed.

I don't want to encourage the point of view that "things will be taken care of", because it only serves to disempower people. The private assistance that did the most good initially was there no matter what laws existed. So the safety nets are there not because of politicians, who just ride around in vehicles surveying the area but physically making little of any difference except to temporarily impede the real efforts on the ground that occur.

Yes, people can benefit from leadership, but if they are effectively only given a single choice, then there's little control over this or incentive for these leaders to perform well. Leadership and communitee efforts can be beneficial but that's not necessarily true when people are forced into something that might even demonstrate itself to be harmful.

Look at it another way. If you're charitable, is it better to tell someone ahead of time that you'll give them $10 if they need the help, before any problem arises, or is it better if that person felt they needed to rely on themselves, then if they still truly needed the help you give them $10?

I think it's better to encourage self-determination as it both gives greater freedom as well as discourages dependence. If someone already knew ahead of time they could "earn" $10 by becoming more dependent, then you've only served to increase the likelihood of such a problem to occur in the future. (This scenario also depends on the morals/ethics of the people involved but in general I think it's best to provide assistance only to the extent it's really needed and not broadcast such an intent to everyone ahead of time ... if too many people need the help, you won't be able to afford it anyway).

[RickSp]

SteveA,

Do you have anything practical to offer or just more theory? Rambling discourses on self determination are fine but worthless to hold back a flood.

[SteveA]

To simplify it a little.

I think it would be a disservice to tell my children they could live dependent on me and I'd take care of them later on in life if things weren't very easy for them.

Though this might be true, it doesn't provide a benefit to make this claim to them.

You may feel differently, that it's more compassionate to assure they know this is true.

I don't have a problem with that really, I just ask (or even demand to some extent) that people not make the claim that their children can live dependent on me, if they can't take care of their children. Maybe it's true I'd help someone elses children. Maybe not. Don't live believing it's an inherent right to do so, though.