New Orleans!
I have not commented much on what happened following Hurricane Katrina, except to say that I found it unacceptable that it was taking so long to rescue people after the storm was over. Now I would like to comment more.
Do I feel that the ball was dropped in handling the emergency in New Orleans? I most certainly do. Do I feel that the federal government was responsible? Probably, but not necessarily. Those of you who have read my blog for awhile are aware that I am not a fan of George W. I do not trust that he really feels any sympathy for the people of New Orleans and Biloxi. I think his visits there were a photo op. On the other hand, I think he, or at least his advisors, surely recognize the political implications of inactivity in this situation, so it would be in his and his party's best interest to act even if he did not particularly care. I don't give him credit for a lot of deep thinking, but I do think the people behind him are perfectly capable of seeing the lay of the land.
I have taught first aid for many years. One of the first principles of first aid is that you do not go into a situation unless it is safe. If you do, you simply run the risk of becoming another victim and making the situation worse, not better. That was surely an issue after Katrina struck. We who were not there and were not involved in handling the situation really do not know how long rescuers had to wait until they could reasonably expect to rescue and not just make the number of people who needed rescuing greater.
It is also not a fair statement that the federal government was not on the scene immediately. The US Coast Guard and the US Army were there as soon as they could begin the rescue effort. Where they there on orders from the President? Maybe not. Maybe that is why the local commander of the Coast Guard has now been put in charge of managing the emergency. But are they representatives of the federal government? Yes, they are, even if they are acting under orders from local command.
Are there other issues besides the response after the storm that need consideration? I think so. We have known for years that New Orleans was below sea level and was the most vulnerable spot in the country to a direct hit from a major tropical storm. Why wasn't there a more effective plan for evacuating that city? Quite sometime ago, I heard a discussion on one of the TV news magazines regarding the logistics of evacuating New Orleans, and the consensus then was that it would be difficult if not impossible. That may well have been the case, but do I think that all that could have been done was done? No!!!!!! Many times, news footage showed school busses under water. Why weren't those school busses and the city busses mobilized to take as many of the poor out of the city as possible? Not only would lives have been saved, but the busses would not need to be replaced because they would not have ended up under water. (I want to go on record as saying that that thought occurred to me before it was brought up on 20/20 Friday evening.) Some people stayed in New Orleans because they had bad judgement. Some stayed because they could not leave. There should have been a plan to get as many of those people out before the storm as possible. If there had been, the slow response of the President after the storm would not have been such a major issue because the numbers of people needing rescue would have been far fewer. So was the ball dropped there? I think the answer to that has to be yes. By whom? The City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana. If you know you have a problem, especially a problem of this magnitude, you have a responsibility to at least try to solve it.
Do I think that the news coverage of this situation has been biased, causing false impressions in many people? Yes, I do. I do not think the bias is necessarily intentional. I feel some sympathy for news reporters who are put on the air for extended periods during an emergency and who have to fill that time with film footage and commentary on situations for which they may not have much background. They have to talk whether or not they have good information. They receive information from people in the newsroom who are trying to gather accurate facts as fast as possible, but time is still limited and they still have to keep talking. For that reason, they say things that are not really based on fact.
One example of this is the emphasis that has been put on the dead bodies floating in the street and the pollution in the water. I heard Dr. Michael Osterholm, who is considered to be the world's foremost epidemiologist, address those issues. He said that while bodies floating in the streets are horrible to see and while not being able to take respectful care of the dead is very traumatic, dead bodies do not present a health threat. They are only a threat if they died of certain very serious communicable diseases, which was not the case in this situation. He also said that the pollution in the water was so dilute that it was not a hazard to anyone with intact skin. For people who were injured, the situation is different, and there will still be deaths of people who have contaminated wounds for days or weeks to come. But for people who were not injured, the contaminated water was not an issue. Dr. Osterholm stated that the real issue was that people were going without food, drinking water and needed medications in very hot weather. That was not the main issue discussed in any of the media coverage I saw, however.
I think sometimes these days we just have too much news coverage. I feel so bad for people who have been rescued but are separated from family members when they hear about bodies floating in the streets. It must be so awful for them wondering if some of those bodies are people they love. I think someone needs to take a serious look at why we put news people on the air to talk for hours with nothing to say.
Another issue I have heard brought up is whether or not the city of New Orleans will be rebuilt, or even should be rebuilt. Do I think it will be? Yes, I do. Some people will not return, but many will because it is their home and they love it. Do I think it should be rebuilt? Yes, I do. Do I think it should be relocated as I have heard some suggest? No, I don't. There is more at stake here than just the city of New Orleans. New Orleans is a major port city. People all along the Mississippi send and receive goods through that city. It is essential to their economy. I live in Minnesota, which is as far north of New Orleans as you can get and still be in the United States. We have ships arriving in Minneapolis and St. Paul regularly through the Port of New Orleans. We depend on that port. We will suffer if it is not there. It takes people to run a port and they have to have a place to live, so there have to be people in New Orleans.
New Orleans is also the home of much of American music and culture because it is the home of jazz. It's true that the music could be relocated, but it would not the the same.
Another issue is the oil from the off-shore drilling at the Port of New Orleans. That's 5% of the oil supply for the United States. That's significant. Recovery of that oil requires people and refineries onshore. Those people also live and work in New Orleans. Whether we like it or not, New Orleans is a major city which affects the economy of the entire middle section of the country directly and the rest of the country indirectly. We need it to be there.
So what is the point of all this? The point is Wake up America!!! We have problems to solve! We need to solve them! With all our resources, we should be able to do that! This problem belongs to all of us and we need to accept that, stop looking for people to blame, and start looking at solutions. We need to take the opportunity to learn what we can from this tragedy. In the interview that I heard, Dr. Osterholm stated that one of the major problems identified after 9-11 was that the police and fire departments of New York City were not on the same radio frequency. That created difficulty in handling the situation effectively. Four years down the road, they are still not on the same frequency. I have a lot of questions relative to that. It seems to me that that would be a good idea not just for New York City, but for any large city or any city at all. Why didn't I hear about it until now? Why hasn't it been done? It seems to me that our government tends to do very visible things like declaring red and yellow alerts or making us walk through the airport metal detectors with our shoes off to make us think that action has been taken, but maybe they are neglecting more important but less visible things that could be done. We can't afford to do the same following Katrina. We have to learn our lessons this time. We have to put systems in place to help keep this tragedy from repeating itself. I heard Hilary Clinton comment on the process that we need to put into place to make sure that the citizens of New Orleans are safer in the future. She says that we need an independent committee to look into the problem and make recommendations. I think that is probably a good idea. Their recommendations need to be made very public and the citizens need to demand to be kept informed on the progress toward implementing those recommendations. Go see what Comet1USA has to say. He said it differently, and in far fewer words.
Recent Comments