Who's in charge here? Reflections on disaster response

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman And we are a very small minority..

So true. Not so much that we are not in support of any given government program or agency but that so many of the sheep ARE, especially when they support things they know nothing about. A slogan is all it takes these days.

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

Emphasis on the word HAD. Hitler, for example had popular support because he gave the people what they wanted and the megalomania didn't show itself until it was too late to do anything about him. Popular support is often used only to GET power.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp 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.

You say that like it's a fact of nature.

If it does "little good" for me to point out that the citizens of New Orleans brought disaster on themselves by ceding a local concern to the control of the federal government, then it does equally "little good" to start pointing fingers now.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Emphasis on the word HAD. Hitler, for example had popular support because he gave the people what they wanted and the megalomania didn't show itself until it was too late to do anything about him. Popular support is often used only to GET power.

At what point was it "too late"? The German people could have risen up at any time, up to and including the seige on Berlin, to overthrow Hitler. Hitler had popular support, all the way to the end.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman At what point was it "too late"? The German people could have risen up at any time, up to and including the seige on Berlin, to overthrow Hitler. Hitler had popular support, all the way to the end.

If memory serves, one of the first things Hitler had enacted was strict gun control. The people had no means to "rise up". Every dictator seems to have a core group of supporters that comprise a sort of goon squad that pops up now and then a kills a few people just to keep the folks on their toes. It doesn't take an army (which is usually controlled by the dictator anyway) to keep control if they are sufficiently ruthless.

Here's the bottom line, if you want to "rise up" and overthrow the despot, take a head count of who wants to be the first to die. You won't need a calculator.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Scribbler1 If memory serves, one of the first things Hitler had enacted was strict gun control.

That would have been the time to rise up. The German people are complicit in anything that happened after that point. Giving up your weapons is basically a free check to the government to do whatever it wants.

[Livemike]

Quote by: RickSp This evening I watched Countdown on MSNBC and have been flabbergasted at all the stories of how FEMA has not only not provided help to those in need following the Katrina disaster, but has actively blocked others from providing aid. Horrible but too believable. Katrina was horrific. FEMA is making it worse. One day after the fourth anniversary, I am reminded of the amazing events of 9/11/01. As absolutely hellish and scarring that day was, there were elements that were nothing less than inspiring. For example: Roughly half a million people trapped in lower Manhattan were evacuated by ferries, launches, tugs boats, diner cruise boats and generally anything that would float, in a larger maritime evacuation than Dunkirk. It was completed in an afternoon. The bright lights that illuminated Ground Zero the night of 9/11 were not emergency lights owned by the city. They were production lights from movie and television production companies all over the city. The large construction cranes that immediately began pulling out chunks of refuse, were not owned or rented by the city or state. They were from construction sites all over the city. An army of skilled workers began to assemble within hours of the towers falling. Steel workers, health care professionals, food service providers to feed everyone. Thousands and thousands of people ready to help. Who arranged all the logistics? Who was providing the command and control? Who contacted everyone? Who arranged the resources and support functions? Nobody. Absolutely nobody. Or maybe everyone.

This is not uncommon according to reason.com. http://www.reason.com/links/links090705.shtml

Quote by: RickSp New York City had an Emergency Response Center that was intended to respond to emergencies. Unfortunately it was located in the World Trade Center and was buried under thousands of tons for flaming steel. So how did it all happen? People just showed up. The company that ran ferry boats on the Hudson shifted to the East River after their Hudson Docks were destroyed. Everyone else operating a boat or launch in the harbor also joined in. The waters were crowde with boats evacuating office workers from downtown. The folks who owned all the lights and heavy equipment were never ordered or even asked to help. They just knew what needed to be done. Likewise, the construction and health workers just came. They showed up because they were needed. On our side of the river, friends and families helped load boats with supplies for all the workers. Everyone did what they could. Ironically, the bankers, lawyers, brokers and accountants who could do little, stood on the West Side highway and cheered as the workers rode trucks toward the fires at Ground Zero. With nothing more they could do, cheering on others at least was something. I was reminded of Sparta, whose greatest boast was that her men were the walls of Sparta. Their strength was not in mortar or stone but in the men of teh city. In the months after 9/11 I came to understand that the strength of the American people was the strength of this country. The people of New York were indeed the walls of our Sparta. I wonder how much more chaotic things would have been after 9/11 if someone was really in "control" in those early hours. We have seen the damage FEMA has done after Katrina. With nobody really in control, 9/12 and the days that followed where their own small, difficult and wrenching sort of miracle. A horrible but amazing time.

[Livemike]

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. 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.

How is disaster recovery a part of "national defense"? National defense is the process of preventing one political entity from controlling another by means of violence. Disaster recovery has nothing to do with violence (although you wouldn't know it by the response to Katrina). Helping people in trouble through no fault of their own is a moral and possibly religious, not government, duty. It's done far better by people without guns and a monopoly on the use of them.

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.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman You say that like it's a fact of nature. If it does "little good" for me to point out that the citizens of New Orleans brought disaster on themselves by ceding a local concern to the control of the federal government, then it does equally "little good" to start pointing fingers now.

The problem is that your statement is no more accurate now than when you made it the first time. Repetition of falsehoods doesn't add much to the mix.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Livemike How is disaster recovery a part of "national defense"? National defense is the process of preventing one political entity from controlling another by means of violence. Disaster recovery has nothing to do with violence (although you wouldn't know it by the response to Katrina). Helping people in trouble through no fault of their own is a moral and possibly religious, not government, duty. It's done far better by people without guns and a monopoly on the use of them.

So if a foreign navy shows up off the coast it is OK to call out the Navy and National Guard but if a hurricane shows up then you say, "Folks, you are on your own"? That is absurd.

I agree that the response to many disasters is best left in private hands, but last I heard the military has transport helicopters, landing craft, and specialized heavy equipment that the your local church group might not have. If we are to spend billions in military hardware why not put it to constructive use every now and then?

One of the reasons that the libertarian movement in this country is such a bad joke is because libertarians too often get lost in their own principles without touching down in the real world. This is a fine example of that.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman That would have been the time to rise up. The German people are complicit in anything that happened after that point. Giving up your weapons is basically a free check to the government to do whatever it wants.

There are a lot of people in the U.S. who believe in gun control as well and I'm sure you have argued this point with quite a few of them. The problem is, people DO die as a result of gun use and when this is the only part of the issue that people see they tend to get rather pointed in their beliefs. You have no more chance of changing their minds on the subject than you have going into a Baptist church service and trying to convert people to Islam.

It's a hard sell to make people think their own beloved government will ever do anything bad enough to cause them to take up arms against it. Look at some of the Bush lovers on these forums. By their words you would swear they were madly in love with him.

[ibm]

Quote by: RickSp ...One of the reasons that the libertarian movement in this country is such a bad joke is because libertarians too often get lost in their own principles without touching down in the real world. This is a fine example of that.

and that's why i don't consider myself a libertarian in real life though i agree to many of the principles.

[Scribbler1]

I am a Libertarian in real life (18 years) and I'll be the first to agree that our views on many things do not take real life into account. They don't HAVE to! Since we have NO political power there is no harm in this and as a realist I believe once we DO get some political clout there will be a lot more attention paid to the "real world" because everyone knows being right over being popular isn't a great way to get elected.

[SteveA]

Though I could agree disaster recovery might be a function federal government assists in. It's not a mandatory function, nor does it imply such functions include an ability to have military units go door to door, disarming and evicting people either.

"Assistance" implies some form of charity, not an enforced beaurocracy dictating how people must be recovered. People aren't entirely incapable of building or even rebuilding if necessary, without people in other states rushing in to take charge.

Honestly, FEMA should operate more like the private groups that came in to offer assistance to people who needed the help. Sure, that can be extended somewhat to providing a peacekeeping presence, but there's a difference between stopping violence and initiating it. FEMA doesn't own New Orleans and doesn't represent a dictator that's free to make laws and enforce them at whim simply because a group of people in an area need some help.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I am a Libertarian in real life (18 years) and I'll be the first to agree that our views on many things do not take real life into account. They don't HAVE to! Since we have NO political power there is no harm in this and as a realist I believe once we DO get some political clout there will be a lot more attention paid to the "real world" because everyone knows being right over being popular isn't a great way to get elected.

I've been a libertarian for over 30 years, in and out of the LP, deeply involved in several campaigns. I just get tired of libertarians who seem stuck in one of Murray Rothbard's books.

The really hard question is "where do we go from here?" Unless we can begin to address it, the libertarian movement will never be more than a debating society, and not a very interesting one at that.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I am a Libertarian in real life (18 years) and I'll be the first to agree that our views on many things do not take real life into account. They don't HAVE to! Since we have NO political power there is no harm in this and as a realist I believe once we DO get some political clout there will be a lot more attention paid to the "real world" because everyone knows being right over being popular isn't a great way to get elected.

So you don't bother with reality or responsibility because you don't expect to be put into power; but if you were ever to come into power, then you would get serious and try to get in touch with reality. Well, in that respect, you are at least a step or two above the Bush administration. But this is hardly an endorsement for putting you into power.

And how exactly would you get in touch with reality? By abandoning your principles? In one sense, that would be good, because those principles are not compatible with the functioning of society. However, willingness ot abandon one's principles is an all-to-common syndrome among politicians; and I do not think that we need more like them, especially if the new politicians have been even less in touch with reality than are the current ones.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: northtexan So you don't bother with reality or responsibility because you don't expect to be put into power; but if you were ever to come into power, then you would get serious and try to get in touch with reality. Well, in that respect, you are at least a step or two above the Bush administration. But this is hardly an endorsement for putting you into power. And how exactly would you get in touch with reality? By abandoning your principles? In one sense, that would be good, because those principles are not compatible with the functioning of society. However, willingness ot abandon one's principles is an all-to-common syndrome among politicians; and I do not think that we need more like them, especially if the new politicians have been even less in touch with reality than are the current ones.

My biggest problem with the L.P. is that they are TOO wrapped up in their beliefs because I recognize that these hold them back in many ways. I have always advocated dropping the pro legalization of drugs stance, for instance. Not to support keeping ANYTHING like that illegal but just to shut up about it. Knowing that most people support keeping drugs illegal should send the message that advocating legalizing drugs will get nobody elected.
Just don't talk about it and if people take that to me a reversal of policy so be it, even though it isn't. It is not abandoning one's principles to simply not talk about them. There is enough the L.P. supports to make people happy if only they would push the popular stuff and lay low with the unpopular stuff.
Seems pretty simple to me, but the L.P. is so hung up on being right we ignore the damage we ourselves do to our electability. That is the difference between "reality" and "political reality".

[SteveA]

Quote by: Scribbler1 My biggest problem with the L.P. is that they are TOO wrapped up in their beliefs because I recognize that these hold them back in many ways. I have always advocated dropping the pro legalization of drugs stance, for instance. Not to support keeping ANYTHING like that illegal but just to shut up about it. Knowing that most people support keeping drugs illegal should send the message that advocating legalizing drugs will get nobody elected. Just don't talk about it and if people take that to me a reversal of policy so be it, even though it isn't. It is not abandoning one's principles to simply not talk about them. There is enough the L.P. supports to make people happy if only they would push the popular stuff and lay low with the unpopular stuff. Seems pretty simple to me, but the L.P. is so hung up on being right we ignore the damage we ourselves do to our electability. That is the difference between "reality" and "political reality".

A lot of people misinterprete the difference between public and private realm, so yes, if you say you want to legalize gambling they assume you're a proponent of it or that such a scenario wouldn't allow people to deny gambling on their property etc. I can understand how the misunderstand occurs.

That's why I've shifted more toward decentralization. The truth is that if a lot of private owners in an area wanted to agree to not allow gambling on their property, there'd be little difference between that and a local government. So the issue isn't as much of whether or not specific things should be legal as much as returning these back into private hands to determine for themselves. (It's not ideal but local governments provide a good way of placing greater control of government functions with individuals)

Some people would want someplace to reflect a more conservative, family oriented set of laws while other people would feel comfortable in a "red light" district. There really isn't a single solution that works for this except to allow people to do different things (assuming there's truly enough consensus in the area ... ideally you'd want 100% agreement but that could be too utopian). It's still important to emphasize the ideals and principles but it's also important to show how people can get from point A to point B without causing too much conflict in the process. Also the more decentralized view I think has fewer people who'd oppose it (it works with most ideologies) except the ones that truly want to have someone holding the reigns, but I can't find much sympathy for those views - something's got to change.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: SteveA That's why I've shifted more toward decentralization. The truth is that if a lot of private owners in an area wanted to agree to not allow gambling on their property, there'd be little difference between that and a local government. So the issue isn't as much of whether or not specific things should be legal as much as returning these back into private hands to determine for themselves. (It's not ideal but local governments provide a good way of placing greater control of government functions with individuals)

I agree. If you believe you have an absolute right to do whatever you want on your own property, provided it doesn't affect anyone else, then it is the same as a local law with the exception that the guy next door can allow gambling on HIS property if he wishes.

It won't work, of course, but I have always supported that idea. The only problem is the other 99% of the country LIKES restrictive laws. Their only problem is that they want to restrict the other guy, while the "other guy" wants to restrict them. And around and around...

[SteveA]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I agree. If you believe you have an absolute right to do whatever you want on your own property, provided it doesn't affect anyone else, then it is the same as a local law with the exception that the guy next door can allow gambling on HIS property if he wishes. It won't work, of course, but I have always supported that idea. The only problem is the other 99% of the country LIKES restrictive laws. Their only problem is that they want to restrict the other guy, while the "other guy" wants to restrict them. And around and around...

Yes, we have a social issues to overcome getting there

It's not impossible to still get close though if people could agree to use supermajority voting requirements to use police to enforce something - if there's not a large consensus on something, maybe it people can agree to leave it to a private resolution, or possibly courts.

But let's say we took the typical 50%+ majority rule democracy but restricted decisions to apply to local areas. At least under that scenario there's still the possibility for people to move somewhere and create their own communities with agreements that could be much more libertarian in nature.

Also if there's the possibility of having greater local diversity, I tend to think that just like Utah and San Francisco or other areas in the country that have a particular character, we'd see a bit more separation between capitalistic and socialistic ideals. With each proving their merit independently. It's hard to see much of that now because the central government moves so many resources around you can't tell what's working well or not because we're all tossed in the same boat, sink or swim.

So ideally we'd return to a more constitutional form of government, but barring that we should at focus on increasing the possibilities for more diversity in local governments. If there's a state where most people want to keep a socialist paradise, fine. In a sense I can't deny them a right to do that (though the people being sacrificed to this have a legitimate right to seek justice ... but maybe it's best just to accept some places are too far gone and we need to work toward halving alternatives available instead of trying to fix the entire nation). Then again, the rules will likely change and successful local communities might just get legally looted with the same result. Dunno ... maybe there's truly a good spot outside the U.S. ... I keep thinking more and more along those lines.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: RickSp This evening I watched Countdown on MSNBC and have been flabbergasted at all the stories of how FEMA has not only not provided help to those in need following the Katrina disaster, but has actively blocked others from providing aid. Horrible but too believable. Katrina was horrific. FEMA is making it worse. One day after the fourth anniversary, I am reminded of the amazing events of 9/11/01. As absolutely hellish and scarring that day was, there were elements that were nothing less than inspiring. For example: Roughly half a million people trapped in lower Manhattan were evacuated by ferries, launches, tugs boats, diner cruise boats and generally anything that would float, in a larger maritime evacuation than Dunkirk. It was completed in an afternoon. The bright lights that illuminated Ground Zero the night of 9/11 were not emergency lights owned by the city. They were production lights from movie and television production companies all over the city. The large construction cranes that immediately began pulling out chunks of refuse, were not owned or rented by the city or state. They were from construction sites all over the city. An army of skilled workers began to assemble within hours of the towers falling. Steel workers, health care professionals, food service providers to feed everyone. Thousands and thousands of people ready to help. Who arranged all the logistics? Who was providing the command and control? Who contacted everyone? Who arranged the resources and support functions? Nobody. Absolutely nobody. Or maybe everyone. New York City had an Emergency Response Center that was intended to respond to emergencies. Unfortunately it was located in the World Trade Center and was buried under thousands of tons for flaming steel. So how did it all happen? People just showed up. The company that ran ferry boats on the Hudson shifted to the East River after their Hudson Docks were destroyed. Everyone else operating a boat or launch in the harbor also joined in. The waters were crowde with boats evacuating office workers from downtown. The folks who owned all the lights and heavy equipment were never ordered or even asked to help. They just knew what needed to be done. Likewise, the construction and health workers just came. They showed up because they were needed. On our side of the river, friends and families helped load boats with supplies for all the workers. Everyone did what they could. Ironically, the bankers, lawyers, brokers and accountants who could do little, stood on the West Side highway and cheered as the workers rode trucks toward the fires at Ground Zero. With nothing more they could do, cheering on others at least was something. I was reminded of Sparta, whose greatest boast was that her men were the walls of Sparta. Their strength was not in mortar or stone but in the men of teh city. In the months after 9/11 I came to understand that the strength of the American people was the strength of this country. The people of New York were indeed the walls of our Sparta. I wonder how much more chaotic things would have been after 9/11 if someone was really in "control" in those early hours. We have seen the damage FEMA has done after Katrina. With nobody really in control, 9/12 and the days that followed where their own small, difficult and wrenching sort of miracle. A horrible but amazing time.

There are some statements within your post that are not quite accurate and I can polemize with, but it would lead to off-topic issues.

You can not compare 09-11 to Katrina events, respectively, since both issues differ significantly.
Example :
- New York's architecture
- New Orleans' architecture

What FEMA does, and FEMA should do, that is the real issue.