Who's in charge here? Reflections on disaster response

[RickSp]

So I guess I'll take that as a "no."

I am all for self reliance just as I am for people helping each other. Both have thier place. Neither will hold back the flood waters.

And a bit of trivia, the first levees were not built by private enterprise as you suggest but by the order of the Marquis de Vaudreuil, the French governor, in 1743. Not that it matters.

[Morgan_Freeman]

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

Since when is FEMA responsible for building levees?

Quote by: RickSp 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.

It's not "his" war. The war had/has overwhelming popular support.

Quote by: RickSp 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.

But also:

Quote by: RickSp 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.

Don't you see a contradiction between those two statements??

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp 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 that's more or less the function of FEMA, as I understand it -- their first priority is to establish absolute control over the population.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Those of us who saw no need for DHS had ZERO representation in this decision, as I'm sure you'll agree.

And we are a very small minority...

Quote by: Scribbler1 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..

Yes, just like them. All of these regimes had popular support.

Quote by: Scribbler1 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?

A very fine question.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp How do you propose "taking care of your own shit" when it comes to building a levee?

This isn't about building a levee, and you know it.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Since when is FEMA responsible for building levees?

I mistyped. The cuts were in the Corps of Engineer's budget.

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman It's not "his" war. The war had/has overwhelming popular support.

Well it sure as hell wasn't my war. It was justified entirely by lies and currently only 34% of the American people support Bush's actions in Iraq. Are you arguing in support of Bush's imperialism?

Your antipathy for FEMA is another example of letting theory get in the way of common sense. Do you deny that even in a minarchist state that the government would have some responsibility for disaster response? And if not who would exactly?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman And that's more or less the function of FEMA, as I understand it -- their first priority is to establish absolute control over the population.

Oh good. What is this another conspiracy? I don't believe that is actually listed in there charter.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman This isn't about building a levee, and you know it.

Bullshit. You play with your theories all you want. It was a levee that broke. You can go on endlessly about self reliance. Some good it will do you when the levee breaks and you are neck deep.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp I mistyped. The cuts were in the Corps of Engineer's budget.

And only the Corps of Engineers can build levees?

Quote by: RickSp Well it sure as hell wasn't my war. It was justified entirely by lies and currently only 34% of the American people support Bush's actions in Iraq.

They can think whatever they want after the fact. At the time, it had mass support. If people had really cared about the the validity of the evidence, they would have looked at it closer.

Quote by: RickSp Are you arguing in support of Bush's imperialism?

It's not "Bush's Imperialism", that's what I'm trying to tell you. It the USA's imperialism.

No, I'm not arguing in support of it. I'm pointing out that it has popular support.
I know that "popular support" equals a mandate in the minds of government-lovers, but not to me.

Quote by: RickSp Your antipathy for FEMA is another example of letting theory get in the way of common sense. Do you deny that even in a minarchist state that the government would have some responsibility for disaster response?

I deny that, even in this constitutional republic we have now, disaster relief is listed among the powers of the federal government.

Quote by: RickSp And if not who would exactly?

How about all of those people who've been trying to help, but foiled at every turn by FEMA?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp Oh good. What is this another conspiracy? I don't believe that is actually listed in there charter.

It certainly is in their operating procedures...

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp Bullshit. You play with your theories all you want. It was a levee that broke. You can go on endlessly about self reliance. Some good it will do you when the levee breaks and you are neck deep.

I'd be out of there. I wouldn't sit around waiting for the cavalry to arrive.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman I'd be out of there. I wouldn't sit around waiting for the cavalry to arrive.

Bubba, I've got five kayaks, but that doesn't help me if my home and all my possessions are being hit by a wall of water. If you live behind a levee, it is best if it doesn't collapse. Your idea may be to live in an RV in cave in Montana but that does not address the topic at hand.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp Bubba, I've got five kayaks, but that doesn't help me if my home and all my possessions are being hit by a wall of water. If you live behind a levee, it is best if it doesn't collapse. Your idea may be to live in an RV in cave in Montana but that does not address the topic at hand.

I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you somehow trying to say it's Bush's fault the levees weren't strengthened?

[RickSp]

Morgan,

If you wouldn't mind stepping off your theoretical high horse for a moment, you might notice that the point I was making in my original post was that things often run better without a FEMA or other agency to control them. That doesn't mean that no organization is required. To the contrary, just that the typical government bureacracy is often the wrong organization.

On the other hand, I do get annoyed when I read crap like our young friend from Utah posted about having no pity the folks trapped then abandoned in New Orleans. I have lived through too many hurricanes (I am originally from Florida) to understand the difficult choices about evacuations. And the truth is that if supplies were arranged the way they should have been, there would have been no problem.

There comes a time when all the theories about self reliance aren't worth squat in a disaster and we all have to help each other. Nothing wrong with that even for an old libertarian like myself.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you somehow trying to say it's Bush's fault the levees weren't strengthened?

To fund the war in Iraq and to support his tax cuts the levee maintenance stopped for the first time in 37 years. Every one acknowledged that the levees breaking would be a disaster and that more work was needed but Bush cut the funding. No, he was not soley responsible but his administration bears some very direct responsibility for the failures.

Here is an article that I've quoted before. It has now been archived but you'll get the idea:

Warnings went ignored as Bush slashed flood defence budget to pay for wars

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor Published: 04 September 2005 Vital measures to protect New Orleans from "catastrophic" hurricane damage were scrapped by the Bush administration to pay for its wars on terror and in Iraq, despite official warnings of impending disaster. Funding for flood prevention was slashed by 80 per cent, work on strengthening levees to protect the city was stopped for the first time in 37 years, and planning for housing stranded citizens and evacuating refugees from the Superdome were crippled. Yet the administration had been warned repeatedly of the dangers by its own officials. In early 2001, at the start of Mr Bush's presidency, his Government's Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) warned that a hurricane hitting New Orleans would be the deadliest of the three most likely catastrophes facing America; the others were a massive San Francisco earthquake and, prophetically, a terrorist attack on New York. Fema's then director, the Bush appointee Joe Allbaugh, said that the warning caused him "great concern". But the President emasculated the agency, subsuming it into the Department of Homeland Security set up after the 11 September 2001 attacks, which concentrated on the terrorist threat.

[SteveA]

Quote by: RickSp So I guess I'll take that as a "no." I am all for self reliance just as I am for people helping each other. Both have thier place.

Glad we agree.

Neither will hold back the flood waters.

Well, that may or may not have been the case but one way to almost guarantee the floods will come would be for everyone to assume someone else was in charge and responsible. (Something that from the current discussions going on and finger pointing seems to be a large part of the problem) Also, it promotes irresponsibility to place control of events that affected New Orleans into the hands of people with little personally at stake there were elsewhere.

I've said many times that governments should be as local as possible and should focus on the minimal functions that protect individuals and their freedoms. The levees would likely have been rather close to top of government functions in this scenario. Would that have been enough to stop the flood, it's actually quite possible. At a minimum, fewer resources would have been bled off to FEMA which had almost no way of doing anything initially anyway.

And a bit of trivia, the first levees were not built by private enterprise as you suggest but by the order of the Marquis de Vaudreuil, the French governor, in 1743. Not that it matters.

Thank you for the correction. I believe I was confusing some of the pumps they're using with the levee itself.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp There comes a time when all the theories about self reliance aren't worth squat in a disaster and we all have to help each other.

I don't see how "self-reliance" and "helping eachother" are mutually exclusive.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp To fund the war in Iraq and to support his tax cuts the levee maintenance stopped for the first time in 37 years. Every one acknowledged that the levees breaking would be a disaster and that more work was needed but Bush cut the funding. No, he was not soley responsible but his administration bears some very direct responsibility for the failures.

This seems to support my contention that responsibility for levee maintenance should have never been ceded to the Feds in the first place.

[RVonse]

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.

Its preposterous not to blame it on him. What ever happened when Harry Truman declared "the buck stops here"? What ever happened to personal accountability for the President of the United States? There is no higher calling than for the president to protect citizens of this country. That is why the president is commander and chief of our military. Furthermore, the people of New Orleans are actually located in our country and not even being held by terrorists. There was absolutely no excuse for a 4 day wait.

I am appalled that he was fiddling around on vacation while American citizens were dying of lack of water. Yes, he did have the power to save those people. The commander and chief of the federal militia can do whatever needs to be done to save Americans. Bush does not report to anyone and everyone reports to him. Bush is the captain of the ship and he is ultimately responsible for the ship.

Bush fell down big time on this one.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman This seems to support my contention that responsibility for levee maintenance should have never been ceded to the Feds in the first place.

Again, don't let theory get in the way of the facts on the ground, or in this case, on the river. Some of the first major levee building was mandated by the French governor in 1743. The private/public aspect of the levees has existed for hundreds of years. It does little good to say that they should never have been ceded to the Federal government. Fact is they haven't. They continue to be a blend of State/Federal and local.

In a completely free society levees might be a privately owned public utility or other solutions to flooding might be developed. We aren't there yet. Or even close.We shouldn't lose sight of our goal, but in the mean time we need to work from where we are.