Monday, September 05, 2005
To Dinkas or not to Dinkas
In the comments sections of posts below we've had readers arguing that the responsibility for the 10,000 odd estimated deaths, and the piss poor official response to Hurricane Katrina is not the resonsibility of United States' leaders.
Dinkas wrote:
Update: No Right Turn has a nice summary of this line of argument:
And here is what some US Republicans are saying:
I liked this excert from a story in the New York Times too:
Dinkas wrote:
While I think what happened in New Orleans is a tragedy, I am somewhat surprised with some people blaming the government, but not looking at themselves.
Update: No Right Turn has a nice summary of this line of argument:
Brian Wolshon, an engineering professor at Louisiana State University who served as a consultant on the state's evacuation plan, said little attention was paid to moving out New Orleans's "low-mobility" population — the elderly, the infirm and the poor without cars or other means of fleeing the city, about 100,000 people.
At disaster planning meetings, he said, "the answer was often silence."
Then, having abandoned New Orleans' weakest citizens to their fate, government officials are now turning around and saying they "chose" not to leave. People in wheelchairs, people who could not afford cars or other transport, and people too old to travel all "chose" to stay behind - despite the choice of leaving not really being available.
And here is what some US Republicans are saying:
The President is now facing a political hurricane of his own, with criticism, even from inside his own party, for failing to heed warnings of the city's vulnerability, cutting spending on its defences to pay for the wars on terror and in Iraq, and responding sluggishly to the worst natural catastrophe to hit his country. Ray Nagin, the Mayor of New Orleans - also under fire for poor leadership - said that every day of delay had caused hundreds of deaths. Louisiana's Republican Senator, David Vitter, gave the Bush Administration "an F grade" and Senator Chuck Hagel, a leading contender for the Republicans' nomination to succeed Mr Bush, said: "There must be some accountability". The criticism is all the sharper because the President did nothing to alter his holiday schedule for 48 hours. Vice-President Dick Cheney remains on holiday in Wyoming and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shopped for several thousand dollars of shoes and attended a Monty Python play, Spamalot in Manhattan as New Orleans drowned.
I liked this excert from a story in the New York Times too:
Mr. Bush's arrival coincided with long-awaited deliveries of aid to the flood zone. (Bennyasena's note: coincidence?) But the president did not interact much with storm victims, and at one site, a Salvation Army truck in Mississippi, those he did see had first been screened by Secret Service agents with metal detectors.
Mr. Bush flew back to Washington from New Orleans without paying a visit to the chaotic makeshift trauma center set up in one terminal at the airport, where many patients evacuated from the city's hospitals were dying before they could be airlifted to other cities.
For the first time, Mr. Bush acknowledged that the government response to the catastrophe had fallen short. "The results are not acceptable," the president said as he left the White House about 9 a.m., his face grim.
Comments:
What about what I say in the next paragraph, "Now, I know because of circumstances not everyone has the means to leave the city".
I was never referring to people who had no means to leave the city (look at my comment to DC's post where I provide details of an Australian tourist who arrived on the day of the hurricane). I think that the government should have played a greater role in helping people to leave the city - this would of course been the responsbibility of the Democrat Mayor of New Orleans and to a lesser extent the Democrat Governor of Louisana.
But do you think everyone single person who stayed did so because they had no means to leave? I would put money on some people staying because they somehow believed the hurricane wouldn't hit, they gambled and they lost. Shouldn't these people look at themselves.
Also, for the people who stayed, I am little surprised by the reports from the Australian tourists (I will limit my criticism specifically to the Australian tourists) that they had no food to eat or water to drink for 3-4 days. I don't get it, there was 24-48 hours warning that the hurricane would hit New Orleans. If they were unable to get out, why didn't they at least buy some bottled water and food to last me for a few days. They seem totally unprepared and expected the calvary to arrive instantly.
All 4 BIR posters have mentioned Bush in your posts about Katrina, but no one has said one critical thing about local or state officials. I do believe the federal government agency, FEMA, bears responsbility for their poor planning after the hurricane hit, but also believe the local and state officials have also acted poorly prior to the hurricane hitting (they could have used these buses to help evacuate some of the poor).
-Dinkas
I was never referring to people who had no means to leave the city (look at my comment to DC's post where I provide details of an Australian tourist who arrived on the day of the hurricane). I think that the government should have played a greater role in helping people to leave the city - this would of course been the responsbibility of the Democrat Mayor of New Orleans and to a lesser extent the Democrat Governor of Louisana.
But do you think everyone single person who stayed did so because they had no means to leave? I would put money on some people staying because they somehow believed the hurricane wouldn't hit, they gambled and they lost. Shouldn't these people look at themselves.
Also, for the people who stayed, I am little surprised by the reports from the Australian tourists (I will limit my criticism specifically to the Australian tourists) that they had no food to eat or water to drink for 3-4 days. I don't get it, there was 24-48 hours warning that the hurricane would hit New Orleans. If they were unable to get out, why didn't they at least buy some bottled water and food to last me for a few days. They seem totally unprepared and expected the calvary to arrive instantly.
All 4 BIR posters have mentioned Bush in your posts about Katrina, but no one has said one critical thing about local or state officials. I do believe the federal government agency, FEMA, bears responsbility for their poor planning after the hurricane hit, but also believe the local and state officials have also acted poorly prior to the hurricane hitting (they could have used these buses to help evacuate some of the poor).
-Dinkas
# posted by 
: 5 September 2005 at 18:28
: 5 September 2005 at 18:28
It was about time we had a post named after you Dinkas.
On the topic at hand, I think it goes without saying that there will be idiots who could have left that stayed.
But in almost all the tv images and pictures I have seen, those who are left in New Orleans fit these categories...
a) law enforcement
b) elderly
c) poor (well they look pretty damn poor to me)
d) hospital patients (women with babies, sick...).
As a percentage of those left behind I think tourists are a fairly low number. Perhaps 5%?
Now there must be hundreds of heads that need to roll over that alone. To leave the elderly and sick in rest homes and hospitals while the young and able bodied ran for the hills is disgusting.
It's all very well insisting/ordering people to leave the city but that assumes that every man women and child knows what the fuck is going on (ie. watches the news and is aware of what a category 5 hurricane is...), what the consequences may be and that they then have the means to leave.
Plainly that wasn't the case.
I think the evacuation debacle is spread in the hands of Louisiana and central government as
a) local government should make sure it GOES AFTER those least able to fend for themselves as they have expert local knowledge.
BUT central government has reportedly cut back on funding on such issues and appears to have also been negligent with regard to the levies. And admits itself that it was "unacceptably" slow to act.
To try to blame those left behind is ridiculous though. It's like blaming the blind for not being able to see. And if it's only a few hundred or even thousand it's pedantic and missing the bigger picture.
On the topic at hand, I think it goes without saying that there will be idiots who could have left that stayed.
But in almost all the tv images and pictures I have seen, those who are left in New Orleans fit these categories...
a) law enforcement
b) elderly
c) poor (well they look pretty damn poor to me)
d) hospital patients (women with babies, sick...).
As a percentage of those left behind I think tourists are a fairly low number. Perhaps 5%?
Now there must be hundreds of heads that need to roll over that alone. To leave the elderly and sick in rest homes and hospitals while the young and able bodied ran for the hills is disgusting.
It's all very well insisting/ordering people to leave the city but that assumes that every man women and child knows what the fuck is going on (ie. watches the news and is aware of what a category 5 hurricane is...), what the consequences may be and that they then have the means to leave.
Plainly that wasn't the case.
I think the evacuation debacle is spread in the hands of Louisiana and central government as
a) local government should make sure it GOES AFTER those least able to fend for themselves as they have expert local knowledge.
BUT central government has reportedly cut back on funding on such issues and appears to have also been negligent with regard to the levies. And admits itself that it was "unacceptably" slow to act.
To try to blame those left behind is ridiculous though. It's like blaming the blind for not being able to see. And if it's only a few hundred or even thousand it's pedantic and missing the bigger picture.
Yamis
Perhaps I didn't make it clear it my 1st comment, although I have tried to caveat my later comments, my annoyance has been based on 2 things
1. Everyone trying to find a way to blame Bush for everything (I have said enough about this in my previous posts)
2.The whining in the Australian media with everyone complaining the goverment is not doing enough to help Australians.
On point 2, the crap has been continuing for days. Today, we have Kim Beazley, leader of the Opposition saying the Australian government should have ignored the US ban on consular staff entering New Orleans and sent in the Australian troops to perform a resuce mission.
(Disclaimer: I have 3 years of consular experience so I do have some knolwedge about what I am talking about here). The last thing you need is for every country left, right and centre going into New Orleans when it is unsafe as you would simply be drawing on more of the local resources which should be directed to providing safety to everyone and not the select few. Beazley harps on about the Aussie news media helping a couple of Australians who were stuck in New Orleans, but fails to mention the news media were able to do this with 2 heavily armed New Orleans police vehicles providing security - was it wise for the police to be assisting these 4 people when 20,000+ people are still left in the city with very little police protection. Shouldn't they try to be treating everyone equally?
I can't find the exact quote (so I am going from memory), but Helen Clark said it best in relation to a consular case in 2002, "New Zealanders need to realise that nanny state ends once you leave New Zealand's shores". I am glad Brash has kept quiet about the situation until now.
I won't dispute your main argument that it is only a small percentage of people who choose to stay behind (I have never argued otherwise) although I think the overall figure would be closer to 10%, but for argument's sake I am happy to agree on 5%.
I do broadly agree with most of what you say about the lack of planning in helping the poor people to leave the city, although I put a the majority of the blame on the local and state officials, and not the federal government. The Governor of Louisana specifically refused the federal government from taking control before the hurricane hit. The Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor then delayed giving a mandatory evacuation order, but eventually did the next day after Bush called the governor asking her to give the order. If blame is to be apportioned, it should be apportioned on who was at fault. The federal government's poor performance didn't start until after the hurricane had hit. One can only speculate on how much easier of a job it would have been if the local and state authorities had done a better job evacuating people.
-Dinkas
Perhaps I didn't make it clear it my 1st comment, although I have tried to caveat my later comments, my annoyance has been based on 2 things
1. Everyone trying to find a way to blame Bush for everything (I have said enough about this in my previous posts)
2.The whining in the Australian media with everyone complaining the goverment is not doing enough to help Australians.
On point 2, the crap has been continuing for days. Today, we have Kim Beazley, leader of the Opposition saying the Australian government should have ignored the US ban on consular staff entering New Orleans and sent in the Australian troops to perform a resuce mission.
(Disclaimer: I have 3 years of consular experience so I do have some knolwedge about what I am talking about here). The last thing you need is for every country left, right and centre going into New Orleans when it is unsafe as you would simply be drawing on more of the local resources which should be directed to providing safety to everyone and not the select few. Beazley harps on about the Aussie news media helping a couple of Australians who were stuck in New Orleans, but fails to mention the news media were able to do this with 2 heavily armed New Orleans police vehicles providing security - was it wise for the police to be assisting these 4 people when 20,000+ people are still left in the city with very little police protection. Shouldn't they try to be treating everyone equally?
I can't find the exact quote (so I am going from memory), but Helen Clark said it best in relation to a consular case in 2002, "New Zealanders need to realise that nanny state ends once you leave New Zealand's shores". I am glad Brash has kept quiet about the situation until now.
I won't dispute your main argument that it is only a small percentage of people who choose to stay behind (I have never argued otherwise) although I think the overall figure would be closer to 10%, but for argument's sake I am happy to agree on 5%.
I do broadly agree with most of what you say about the lack of planning in helping the poor people to leave the city, although I put a the majority of the blame on the local and state officials, and not the federal government. The Governor of Louisana specifically refused the federal government from taking control before the hurricane hit. The Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor then delayed giving a mandatory evacuation order, but eventually did the next day after Bush called the governor asking her to give the order. If blame is to be apportioned, it should be apportioned on who was at fault. The federal government's poor performance didn't start until after the hurricane had hit. One can only speculate on how much easier of a job it would have been if the local and state authorities had done a better job evacuating people.
-Dinkas
# posted by : 5 September 2005 at 22:42
: 5 September 2005 at 22:42
Next time, I will learn to use preview to fix all my stupid mistakes.
-Dinkas
-Dinkas
# posted by : 5 September 2005 at 22:44
: 5 September 2005 at 22:44
Dinkas et al - I think there's a measure of consensus emerging here. A small proportion of those left behind were morons who had it coming; a large proportion had no choice in the matter, and deserve better assistance from all levels of government.
One point on which I might disagree with you, Dinkas, is the post-hurricane response of the City: as best I can work out, there pretty much is no City anymore. City workers/employees have fled along with everyone else, including local police it seems. Those who remain presumably have no offices, no supplies, no computers, no workers, etc., just like everyone else (or, at least, their access to these things is severely limited).
This type of thing overwhelms the resources of any city authority, perhaps (cf. 9/11 only involving a tiny part of NYC)? Just a hypothesis on my part.
Finally, I don't think I mentioned Bush in my post on this (although criticism of the Feds was implied)?
One point on which I might disagree with you, Dinkas, is the post-hurricane response of the City: as best I can work out, there pretty much is no City anymore. City workers/employees have fled along with everyone else, including local police it seems. Those who remain presumably have no offices, no supplies, no computers, no workers, etc., just like everyone else (or, at least, their access to these things is severely limited).
This type of thing overwhelms the resources of any city authority, perhaps (cf. 9/11 only involving a tiny part of NYC)? Just a hypothesis on my part.
Finally, I don't think I mentioned Bush in my post on this (although criticism of the Feds was implied)?
I'm wondering (as I've only heard whispers) what could have been done to prevent the levies from being breached in the first place.
The hurricane seems to have done relatively little in the overall scheme of things to New Orleans. Rather it was the levy breaking that has caused all the damage.
At the end of the day that is going to be the biggest issue surely.
No breach = no flooding.
The people that decided to ride the storm out actually did so successfully. It was something else which fucked them.
And for the record Dinkas, virtually ALL the media that I have seen in the herald, yahoo news, tv etc etc has been mentioning and/or pressuring the Bush administration
also why the interest in what a bunch of Australians are saying?
The hurricane seems to have done relatively little in the overall scheme of things to New Orleans. Rather it was the levy breaking that has caused all the damage.
At the end of the day that is going to be the biggest issue surely.
No breach = no flooding.
The people that decided to ride the storm out actually did so successfully. It was something else which fucked them.
And for the record Dinkas, virtually ALL the media that I have seen in the herald, yahoo news, tv etc etc has been mentioning and/or pressuring the Bush administration
also why the interest in what a bunch of Australians are saying?
I'm reading estimates that 150,000 did not evacuate.
And that one in five residents of New Orleans does not own a vehicle.
Actually I recommend that people go to wikipedia and search for Hurricane Karina. It's constantly updated and has lots of good stats and links.
"Many critics have noted that while the local government gave a mandatory evacuation order on August 28, before the storm hit, they did not make provisions to evacuate the homeless, the poor, the elderly, the infirm, or the car-less households. Evacuation was mainly left up to individual citizens to find their own way out of the city. It was known that many residents of New Orleans lacked cars. A 2000 census revealed that 27% of New Orleans households, amounting to approximately 120,000 people, were without privately-owned transportation. Additionally, New Orleans has one of the highest poverty rates in the United States at about 38%. These factors may have prevented many people from being able to evacuate on their own. Consequentially most of those stranded in the city are the poor, the elderly, and the sick."
..."The media is reporting widespread criticism of the inadequate response by local, state and federal authorities to the hunger, death and lack of aid to the hurricane's victims. About 6,200 Army and Air National Guard troops were on duty in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida when Katrina struck, and by 31 August, that number climbed to 11,000 Army and Air National Guard members from around the nation and 7,200 active-duty troops, mostly Navy. 10,000 more National Guard troops are expected to join the effort within the following 48 hours. However more than two and a half days after the hurricane struck, police, health care and other emergency workers voice concerns, in the media, about the absence of National Guard troops in the city for search and rescue missions and to control looting. It was not until Friday that the military arrived in New Orleans in sufficient numbers to ease the suffering of the storm survivors."
And that one in five residents of New Orleans does not own a vehicle.
Actually I recommend that people go to wikipedia and search for Hurricane Karina. It's constantly updated and has lots of good stats and links.
"Many critics have noted that while the local government gave a mandatory evacuation order on August 28, before the storm hit, they did not make provisions to evacuate the homeless, the poor, the elderly, the infirm, or the car-less households. Evacuation was mainly left up to individual citizens to find their own way out of the city. It was known that many residents of New Orleans lacked cars. A 2000 census revealed that 27% of New Orleans households, amounting to approximately 120,000 people, were without privately-owned transportation. Additionally, New Orleans has one of the highest poverty rates in the United States at about 38%. These factors may have prevented many people from being able to evacuate on their own. Consequentially most of those stranded in the city are the poor, the elderly, and the sick."
..."The media is reporting widespread criticism of the inadequate response by local, state and federal authorities to the hunger, death and lack of aid to the hurricane's victims. About 6,200 Army and Air National Guard troops were on duty in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida when Katrina struck, and by 31 August, that number climbed to 11,000 Army and Air National Guard members from around the nation and 7,200 active-duty troops, mostly Navy. 10,000 more National Guard troops are expected to join the effort within the following 48 hours. However more than two and a half days after the hurricane struck, police, health care and other emergency workers voice concerns, in the media, about the absence of National Guard troops in the city for search and rescue missions and to control looting. It was not until Friday that the military arrived in New Orleans in sufficient numbers to ease the suffering of the storm survivors."
Yamis: My interest in what the Australians are saying is that I live in Australia. No cable TV means I am stuck with the free-to-air channels. Everytime I wanted to watch the news, it was some idiot new angle to the story on how it was Bush's fault or the Australian governemnt's fault.
Yes, I realise everyone in the media has blamed Bush, but the polls suggest the people think otherwise. I just don't get the focus on Bush and I expect the Australians with a federal system themselves to understand that. I did have a look at the news last night in Australia, and they actually mentioned the Mayor of New Orleans for the first time and talked about poor local planning, but then it was talk that Bush will now be a lame duck president.
I understand the only thing that could have been done to prevent a category 4 hurricane breaching the leeves was to build a new levee. The current levee would only protect against a category 3 hurricane.
DC: Ok, I have looked at your post again, and I see you don't mention Bush by name (I actually thought one of the previous posts by Yamis was yours). I swear you had mentioned him in a comment but I can't find that so I'll take that back.
I see there are 4 groups of people/orgs to blame here
1. Local = Mayor of New Orleans
2. State = Governor
3. Federal = FEMA
4. Bush
When all those public servants were fleeing, didn't the city have some kind of plan to evacuate all the poor people, it seems as if the plan was not put in place. I mean there were school buses and ordinary buses lying around the city flooded. For this, I blame the local and state officials. I have no problem blaming the federal government for the post-hurricane side of the things - which I had already said was inadequate/poorly implemented etc.
-Dinkas
Yes, I realise everyone in the media has blamed Bush, but the polls suggest the people think otherwise. I just don't get the focus on Bush and I expect the Australians with a federal system themselves to understand that. I did have a look at the news last night in Australia, and they actually mentioned the Mayor of New Orleans for the first time and talked about poor local planning, but then it was talk that Bush will now be a lame duck president.
I understand the only thing that could have been done to prevent a category 4 hurricane breaching the leeves was to build a new levee. The current levee would only protect against a category 3 hurricane.
DC: Ok, I have looked at your post again, and I see you don't mention Bush by name (I actually thought one of the previous posts by Yamis was yours). I swear you had mentioned him in a comment but I can't find that so I'll take that back.
I see there are 4 groups of people/orgs to blame here
1. Local = Mayor of New Orleans
2. State = Governor
3. Federal = FEMA
4. Bush
When all those public servants were fleeing, didn't the city have some kind of plan to evacuate all the poor people, it seems as if the plan was not put in place. I mean there were school buses and ordinary buses lying around the city flooded. For this, I blame the local and state officials. I have no problem blaming the federal government for the post-hurricane side of the things - which I had already said was inadequate/poorly implemented etc.
-Dinkas
# posted by : 6 September 2005 at 17:27
: 6 September 2005 at 17:27
I just think that many of us find it ironic that Bush and co can merrily spend tens of millions of dollars wielding it's sword around the world, and implement all sorts of draconian measures in it's own country and then BAM! more people die in a preventable situation than all the plastic forks on aircrafts could kill in a kizillion years.
They've all been caught with their pants round their ankles on this one.
They've all been caught with their pants round their ankles on this one.
Post a Comment