Planning for disasters is hard work...it's much easier to ignore the so-called experts (afterall, they got their education from liberal univeristies) and just give tax cuts to your friends.
Posted by the professor at September 1, 2005 07:19 AM"Nevertheless, the planning has to start now."
Not when there are more tax cuts to be handed out.
Posted by Bob Sakowski at September 1, 2005 07:28 AMNOW with Bill Moyers covered the threat to New Orleans last year. A transcript is available at http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_neworleans.html
Posted by Citizen Keith at September 1, 2005 07:28 AMThe Bush Administration doesn't need to plan because it's all God's plan to begin with. They can only react and give thanks when they are spared.
Posted by Steve Talbert at September 1, 2005 07:54 AMthey are southerners, not too bright......
I mean look who they voted for in large numbers?
and they fell for the WMD argument hook, line, and sinker when most of us knew it was wrong before the first tank left Kuwait.
You're not going to pry Americans away from their petroleum-combustion based lifestyle. Global warming could swamp every shoreline to the point all 280 million of us were encamped atop the Rockies and Appalachian mountains and we'd build highways all over their slopes. Tell people to walk, ride a bike or carpool and you might as well be suggesting they eat their children. Bush knows this. Big oil knows this. Right now it's all about putting money in the bank, profits and tax avoidance. Anything else is allegedly liberal, mealymouthed, enviro-nut, chicken little paranoia and will be forcefully and successfully portrayed as such by the Right.
Posted by steve duncan at September 1, 2005 07:59 AMI'd like to ask who's idea is it that stadium bleachers make up a shelter?
I don't know who came up with it, but you have to believe that NFL and MLB owners are already working the disaster relief angle into pitches for new stadium deals.
Posted by dj moonbat at September 1, 2005 08:04 AMStevie has it right! Good post! Great insight! I'm worried about Fats Domino. Has he and his family been found? I hear Washington Dulles airport may close for lack of jetfuel. That airport employs almost everybody here in the N.Va. area, ferriners, that is. Some white folks, too, I guess, though I haven't seen too many besides the flight attendants and pilots. Are they going to vote the bums out in 'o6 when the unemployment dips into tsunami porportions?
Nah, we can look forward to the further disastering of AMERIKA; is this what homeland security is all about?
Posted by MalFeasance at September 1, 2005 08:10 AMI wouldn't expect much help from the international community. We have been such bullies lately and created so many enemies and such dislike around the world. I would think that there is a lot of the world very glad to see the U.S. finally "get their's".
Posted by Barry at September 1, 2005 08:30 AMBarry, that's why shrub called on Clinton. If anyone can get Europe on board, it's him.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 1, 2005 09:07 AMI wouldn't expect much help from the international community.
I was just reading somewhere (Majikthise, maybe?) that Canada was going to send an ace search and rescue team, and we wouldn't let them.
Posted by dj moonbat at September 1, 2005 09:11 AMYup, Canada wanted to send food and water and supplies but Homeland Security deemed it a threat to national security. WTF is wrong with those people?
Posted by ann at September 1, 2005 09:48 AMWTF is wrong with those people?
How much time do you have?
Posted by dj moonbat at September 1, 2005 10:50 AMIn an attempt to raise the level of discussion, let me offer this bit of information and see if it leads to more thoughtful discourse than Bush = Evil.
I have met and deal directly with most of the emergency managers throughout the Gulf Coast and also have attended numerous planning sessions for disasters in areas across the U.S. All of the discussions have been centered on the equipment, personnel, training and management in the event of any catastrophic incident.
The largest point of contention boils down to red-area (read as rural) verses blue-area (urban) distribution of Homeland Security Grant funds. This pool of money, massive by pre-9/11 standards, is to be used primarily to equip first responders with items not normally needed in their everyday duties. Immediately, blue proponents said that logic dictates they be granted a disproportionate share of the money, because they were the target of terrorist actions. On the surface, this makes a great deal of sense.
A large portion of the money currently being spent from these funds is for interoperable communications, mobile command centers, decontamination equipment and numerous other items meant to help in the mass relocation of civilians.
One argument that has been made against heavy urban spending and for more balanced spending is that any event in a large population center will lead to evacuation and the need for this equipment in the outlying rural communities. As we are seeing in New Orleans, the million dollar mobile command centers, used to coordinate post-disaster relief efforts, are not too effective if they are underwater. This would be true even if the disaster was a bio-terrorist attack on Boston or a nuclear blast in Los Angeles.
CBS “60 Minutes” did a sarcastic hit piece on some small rural town that had received funds and purchased a decontamination unit. The mayor of the town admitted that he doubted the town was on any terrorist hit list, however the thought that survivors of metropolitan area disaster would end up in his area was never discussed.
After viewing the current situation along the Gulf, would money have been better spent by equipping outlying areas rather than the city itself? Self interest by urban official prevents even the idea of purchasing land and constructing city owned evacuation centers in rural areas.
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject.
j. west, it would seem in an event such as this, where advance notice was given, the chief need of an outlying area would be accomodations and food for evacuated persons. There would also be a need for medical care for the ill and injured. I doubt Homeland Security wants to expend funds to build hospitals in urban areas for such events. As to accomodations it would seem were the affected populations to fan out far enough commercial lodgings might be of a sufficient number to house them. Wouldn't merely a massive transportation effort along with government appropriation of hotels, motels and the like have lessened significantly the current disaster, at least in terms of the toll of human suffering?
Posted by steve duncan at September 1, 2005 11:49 AMJ.west, that is an excellent analysis. It's true that in case of total cataclysm, anything placed in an urban area wouldn't be of much use anywhere.
However, that's the absolute worst case scenario. This view only holds if the nuclear attack (we'll go with that) is completely unexpected, very well-executed, and large enough to wipe out an enormous city. The government at all three levels would have to be caught off-guard.
But that's not typically the case. It's highly unlikely that a terrorist cell could get a hold of and deploy an Apocalypse Class (or whatever) nuclear weapon within US borders. They're probably too big to do so without raising suspicion. More likely, it'd be a couple Hiroshima-sized bombs, which can be transported in suitcases. Hell, there are probably half a dozen of them here already. Terrifying and incredibly destructive though they may be, there is life after a nuclear attack of that size. And first responders, being the first, would have to be closest. So, spend more on the urban areas, but spread them out too.
It's not about saving blue-areas first (though they do provide more tax revenue and as such should be shown more return) for the sake of the collective beliefs there; it's a little utilitarian.
Posted by DukeRevolution at September 1, 2005 11:53 AMOops, I forgot to include the context of the entry...
I don't have a response to that, unfortunately =\
Posted by DukeRevolution at September 1, 2005 11:59 AMI checked into what you said about Canada wanting to send supplies and food and water. Homeland Security says it is a National Threat. How is it a national threat. They think they are going to inject poisons or send a bomb over, or maybe contaminate the water with something. This country is wrong. Those people need those supplies, water and food. Its not like they have a house anymore because Bush took out the funding for the levees, and now they won't let them send supplies, or food. This country is wacked because of our president.
J West
You have raised some cogent points. Many people have been wondering why no preparations have apparently been made for displaced populations of disasters, whether natural or man-made. Football stadia would have to rank near the bottom of any rational refugee plan in my book. Pre-placed equipment, planning for disasters and the actual re-location of endangered populations, as in out of a flood plain, smacks too much of the principle of mitigation. That was emblematic of Bill Clinton and James Witt.
Bush has always been rabidly ABC (Anything But Clinton). From February of 2001, Bush has placed political cronies in charge of FEMA with the express purpose of outsourcing and much money as possible. You are quite correct. we need to judiciously balance the money we spend in preparation based on need and forethought, not political strength. Unfortunately, Homeland Security has never had anything to do with forethought or, for that matter, real defense. There are only two words in the Washington lexicon today: money and power. Not that they are actually so separate. Do you have any suggestions? Please remember that only one, inbred group of actors has any ability to effect changes.
Posted by DeminNewJ at September 1, 2005 12:26 PM
One thing I will be interested in seeing in the after action reports on New Orleans is the post-flooding evacuation plan.
Officials of the city of New Orleans know within 1 inch the elevation of every spot in the town. Study after study have been done on the consequences of a leevy failure. From that data, high ground areas would be charted and the plan for removal of survivors from these places would be made.
It does not appear that these plans have been well thought out, let alone executed.
Posted by j.west at September 1, 2005 12:27 PMDeminNewJ,
One of the first items that should be brought to light is the extremely small influence the federal Homeland Security Department has on what state and local governments do with the money.
Although DHS has the ability to insist that a certain percentage is spent on equipment rather than additional hiring, all decisions are made at the local level with varying degrees of input/interference from the state. Some states and localities have excellent, well thought out plans and purchase equipment to execute them. Other places are totally clueless and will have mass casualties of officials tripping over themselves in the smallest crisis.
I know I'm going to incure alot of wrath for this next statement, but believe me, it's true. It seems the bluer the area, the less seriously the officials take the planning process. It is more like a jobs program than actual contingency planning. As it was pointed out earlier in this thread, New Orleans is and has been bluer than blue. I hate to bring this up in the midst of a serious discussion, but I also know that any incident in Detroit would be total chaos also.
Posted by j.west at September 1, 2005 12:59 PMmuckbat, it's a "threat" because if we used Canadian meds for this crisis, people would realize they are safe and then everything Bush has been saying about the dangers of Canadian drugs would be proven false.
Posted by ann at September 1, 2005 01:15 PM"They think they are going to inject poisons or send a bomb over, or maybe contaminate the water with something."
Muckbat, you have got to be kidding. What idiots! LOL
Posted by Juditgh at September 2, 2005 12:19 AMGood column. Lots of us forget that the Feds (Fema)like the vampire, cannot come in unless invited. The most glaring tragedy is the lack of leadership and preparation by the LA govenor and th N.O. mayor as evidenced by the chaos.
Posted by sal at September 3, 2005 09:06 AM"It's not about saving blue-areas first (though they do provide more tax revenue and as such should be shown more return) for the sake of the collective beliefs there; it's a little utilitarian."
So, rich people deserve more services from the government because they pay more in taxes?!