Post-Katrina Images on Google Maps

breadiu writes " Satellite imagery of New Orleans taken on Wednesday, August 31st is now available on Google Maps. Enter 'New Orleans' in the search field at the top of the page, or drag and zoom the map to the area. A red 'Katrina' button will appear at the top right of the map, next to the existing map buttons. Older images for the area are still available too - click the "Satellite" button to switch to those."

Comments

Re:Odd story about Katrina victims.

[Tekgno]

Or used an old ID in order to capitalise on the sympathies of others.

Engineering, Environmental Approach

[toxic666]

For those interested in reading on geological hazards, check out Engineering Geology, An Environmental Approach:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0130 52770X/qid=1126049667/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl 14/002-0778082-8548014?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Not intended as flamebait (I contributed $100 to the Red Cross), but people just refuse to learn to move away from flood-prone areas, even after they are destroyed.

The author survived the 1972 Rapid City flood in which 237 people were killed and adopted the philosophy of never rebuilding homes in the flood plain. Rapid City learned its lesson, and only commercial and industrial buildings are allowed in the flood plain. There are also a lot of parks and public use areas on the flood plain.

Yet, the monetary amount of damage done by floods increases with time as people continue to develop flood plains and barrier islands. Folks, flood control structures fail too often to justify their cost to the country's taxpayers. It is a shame thousands died in New Orleans and we will again fail to learn our lesson.

Re:Engineering, Environmental Approach

[DerekLyons]

Not intended as flamebait (I contributed $100 to the Red Cross), but people just refuse to learn to move away from flood-prone areas, even after they are destroyed.

In the real world - it's just not that simple. Even if the move the entire population of New Orleans - within a few years, a decade at most, Newer Orleans will spring up in it's place. We still need a port at the mouth of the Missisippi and the people who work at the port will need housing, grocery stores, etc... In the real world factors other than safety determine where cities situate themselves.

The author survived the 1972 Rapid City flood in which 237 people were killed and adopted the philosophy of never rebuilding homes in the flood plain. Rapid City learned its lesson, and only commercial and industrial buildings are allowed in the flood plain. There are also a lot of parks and public use areas on the flood plain.

Rapid City could do that because the bulk of it's jobs in 1972 were not on the flood plain, but at Ellsworth AFB. (And pretty much, that's still the case.) Such a specific instance speaks little about the general case.

Convienently ignoring one major fact

[Shivetya]

The Federal Disaster Area declaration is nearly as large as the United Kingdom. How would you go about getting everything to everyone in a few days?

Also in the US disaster preparedness and recovery are normally the venue of the States and localities. By tradition they are supposed to ask for aid. Supposedly, I cannot find the story right now, the LA Govenor asked Bush for some time before calling out the Guard. It is the State that "by tradition" orders the Guard, Bush respected that but sometimes I think traditions stink. There are 330,000 Guard members in the US currently. I would think more than a small percent could be moved provided the States will act.

Re:Convienently ignoring one major fact

[sparkz]

Excellent point, IMHO.
Given that there was a few days notice of Katrina, there seems to be no excuse for the way in which it has been dealt with by the richest nation on the planet.
Had it been an unforseen terrorist attack, Dubwa would be blaming it all on terrorists... this just goes to show that the USA is too arrogant to defend itself against anything, and that Dubya isn't capable of dealing with his pretzels, let alone a nation.

Re:Convienently ignoring one major fact

[ScentCone]

Given that there was a few days notice of Katrina, there seems to be no excuse for the way in which it has been dealt with by the richest nation on the planet.

So, let's see. If this were something that happened to a less wealthy nation, what would have happened? In matter of some weeks, there would be some pale shadow of the amount of support that was moving into the Gulf Coast area within hours. There has been significant destruction over 90,000 square miles, with people cut off from utilities and communication throughout that area.

The National Guard has been been running non-stop relief flights and convoys into that entire area - and this is important, because those remote rural areas are the least able to connect to support. The people living in urban areas are easier to support, given their density, once you've got transportation lined up. That it only took from Tuesday until early Thursday for that to work, despite the huge problems, is actually pretty amazing. That doesn't sound so nice to the people that didn't get out of town, but it's worth mentioning that the town's mayor - who knows exactly where emergency support starts (locally) - explicitly told his local citizens that if they were to gather in the central stadium area, they were to bring their own food and water because there would be none immediately available.

the richest nation on the planet

Being the richest nation on the planet doesn't allow us to change the laws of physics (in terms of moving supplies, equipment, and people). But it's also worth talking about one of the key foundational aspects of US culture - and part of what allows the US economy to maintain its level of productivity and high employment. Specifically, the country has a long tradition of self sufficiency and localized culture. This extends all the way through how emergency services are planned (or not).

Had it been an unforseen terrorist attack, Dubwa would be blaming it all on terrorists

And, who would you blame for a terrorist attack, other than the terrorists that commit the attack? If you're in the "victims deserve the attacks they get" camp, then there's really no point continuing a discussion. Otherwise, that sort of leaves the attackers culpable. But since you're trying to draw some sort of connection between the aftermath of a colossal storm that impacted an area the size of many entire other countries, and think that somehow the president is in a position to stop it, or to tell the governer of Louisiana when and how to ask for help... well, you're missing the point. Come to think of it, why did the governor of Louisiana wait until Wednesday to authorize her state's guards to use private sector transportation to actually provide relief for her people? She'll have to answer to the local people that elected her. But I guarantee that if the federal government, in non-crisis circumstances, told the state governors that they were going to permanently muscle in and run the local preparation for things like storms, then there would be a huge mess, politically at the very least.

this just goes to show that the USA is too arrogant to defend itself against anything

Not quite sure how that follows - but I don't think, being a Brit, you're quite understanding the nature of a federal republic, or the strong powers (and responsibilities) that are given to the 50 states that make up the union. That has its strengths and weaknesses - and a state, like Louisiana, that is notorious for its local government corruption and weakness, is (quite literally, now, alas) stewing in its own juices. There are mechanisms in place for the federal government to displace the local governor's authority, but the constitution actually calls for findings of "insurrection" at the local level before we bypass the important responsibilities and powers that are reserved by the states.

You may or may not have noticed the substantial response that New York's

Re:Convienently ignoring one major fact

[Anonymous Coward]

So, let's see. If this were something that happened to a less wealthy nation, what would have happened? In matter of some weeks, there would be some pale shadow of the amount of support that was moving into the Gulf Coast area within hours.

The amount of support moving into the Gulf Coast 'within hours' was the pale shadow.

You might remember that tsunami, which affected less wealthy nations, and had a far greater scope of damage, far less warning, and ultimately, a far better response. It was devastating, but handled far better.

We all know that there's bureaucracy and little fiefdoms to take into account... but it's sad that you're almost defending them in the name of 'state sovereignty'.

Re:Wow that's creepy

[Anonymous Coward]

If you build a sandcastle on the beach and the waves wash it away, do you blame the ocean?

Living in dangerous places

[wytcld]

Can I take it as a given you are totally against humans living in space. Comets and depressurization happen.

Or would you consider that living in space may be worth it both for the economic opportunities and the beauty? New Orleans was built where it was because of the economic opportunities of being near the mouth of a river that's major transportation for a large chunk of America. You don't choose to build major port cities where it's safest; you by definition have to build them by the ocean. When a river's as big as the Mississippi you have to build them in the muddy delta.

So people shouldn't live where there's the economic opportunity of a port (or, likewise, of the Lagrange Points)? And all those upstream, or down the gravity well, should also do without the economic advantage of a good port?

What about the people in the New Orleans area working the Gulf oil and natural gas industries. That's dangerous. Man, we shouldn't mine asteroids either, right? Everyone can just do without the energy, or the minerals, if the alternative is someone risking their lives in an inherently dangerous place.

I really just want to know. It's hard to understand the new America, where people just shouldn't take risks -- even if those risks can serve to benefit a large part of the society and economy -- so when the risk goes bad the society, despite all the benefits its got from, in this instance New Orleans as a port and as a unique cultural incubator -- without which we wouldn't have either jazz or rock and roll, by the way -- why, let the poor fools drown. What were they thinking, living there?

Re:Odd story about Katrina victims.

[jd]

Portland, Oregon is apparently going to absorb 15,000 refugees in the near future. I've no idea what impact trying to cope with that sort of scale of influx is going to have.

Hey, I agree they need housing, support, etc, and I've no opposition to everyone doing what they can. But it sounds to me that the current plan of action is based more on looking good than doing good. Large population migrations of this kind impact everything from culture through to the economy. You can't just throw tens of thousands of people around the country and hope for the best.

(Well, you can. Germany did, when it unified. Damn near destroyed West Germany, with zero benefit to East Germans. Virtually all the problems in the Middle East are due to mass population migrations. In fact, virtually all long-term problems in history have been because of mass population migrations.)

The day it became obvious that Katrina was going to hit Category 5, work should have started on getting ready for an inevitable refugee crisis. They didn't, ok, so they should be working on long-term impact assessments NOW, and working on making sure that further harm isn't done.

Of course, they aren't. Right about now, they've bugger all idea of what the long-term consequences are. What about health consequences? I doubt the refugees have been checked in case of contageous diseases. I am pretty certain that people who left under their own steam, after it became obvious that rescue wasn't on the way, haven't been checked. The risk probably isn't great, but it's certainly not zero.

There are other risks. More than a few of these people will be armed, all of them will be suffering from PTSD, none of them are likely to have the money needed to get adequate support. That's a very high-risk combination, particularly as grudges may well be carried for the lack of support and the perception of abandonment. To make things worse, there WILL be resentment towards the refugees by other Americans, especially in areas where the "ideal" of absolute self-support is a religion. Violence seems certain.

After the draining, there'll be further stresses as refugees try to return home - or are pushed into doing so. Even after draining is complete, the entire region should be decontaminated and then checked for subsidance, prior to anyone trying to live there again. The reality is, that isn't going to happen. In turn, that means that there is a risk of death by disease or structural failure.

Re:Odd story about Katrina victims.

[sessamoid]

They had a very new van (rental looking) full of stuff, I mean full. A dog, cat, looked like everything they had...

Dude, it's California. Do you know how many "van people" I have parked outside my house that match that exact description with out of state plates? Lots of people seem to live out of their vehicles in California, b/c the weather's so good.

They had the cash to pay for the gas to get all the way to California in a van, and they want a free $100 tent? I don't buy the story, but then again I'm pretty cynical and jaded.

Re:Wow that's creepy

[Doc Ruby]

You do realize that New Orleans was FLOODED BY THE ADACENT LAKE FOR DAYS, in addition to the hurricane, right?

What kind of insane bullshit compares the damage from the hurricane passing through both New Orleans AND Mississippi, with the tiny damage even possible by the few humans left standing after the HURRICANE AND FLOOD?

I'm sure that you didn't realize that your words do have meaning, though. The "human-caused" damage to New Orleans was done by the politicians who ignored the plentiful warnings and pleas for better engineering. The Army Corps of Engineers who let it happen, though it wasn't their request - that's orders they shouldn't have followed without a fight.

And people like you, spreading bullshit about the hurricane damage, and the people of New Orleans. You're a sick bastard who's kicking the people of New Orleans while they're down, not even around to defend themselves. I'm not going to pretend New Orleanians weren't tough, often criminal, even without a catastrophic disaster destroying their city. But you should be glad none of them are watching you type that bullshit, or you'd witness firsthand some real human-caused damage.

Re:Wow that's creepy

[dabraun]

Perhaps by 'human caused' he meant the damage caused by people building levees and trying to live below sea level - virtually guaranteeing that something like this would eventually happen.

I love New Orleans - but doesn't the whole idea of living on the gulf coast below sea level seem the slightest bit ... dumb?

Re:Incident of National Significance

[Anonymous Coward]

They did, days before Katrina hit, Bush declared it a disaster, invoking the Stafford Act. At that point, the *National* Response Plan took effect and disaster management became federal responsibility, a "Incident of national Significance". That was 3 days *before* Katrina hit. A state of emergency was declared *before* Katrina hit. Martial law was declared shortly after. State and locals were asking for helping, the bush administration just wasn't listening.

What happened was a catastrophic failure of local and state government. Bush requested that the governor issue a mandatory evacuation notice. She said the needed 24 hours to decide. By the time she issued the mandatory evac order, the first feeder band from the hurricane was 8 hours away.

Also, The Mayor of New Orleans ignored his own evacuation plan. It was the local government's responsibility, not the federal government, to have provisions to evacuate those who were not able (the mayor's evac plan called for the use of city buses, for example, which were left to be flooded in a parking lot). But, chances are the buses wouldn't have been able to be mobilized in time because he issued the order so late.

People seem to be ignoring the fact that the New Orleans government was known to be corrupt, and as has been demonstrated, completely incompetent in handling a crisis. Maybe if they hadn't been using their Levee funding over the years to buy casinos, marinas, and private jets instead of building up the levees, they would have been more prepared (and more likely to get more funding from the feds).

But no. Have you ever noticed how Bush is taking the blame for this from every single angle imagineable?
He was responsible for the global warming that caused the hurricane, he was responsible for not immediately sending in the military to take over law enforcement for a local government (which I'm sure wouldn't have been as much a problem if 1/3 of the local police force didn't walk off the job), he is being blamed for the guns in the hands of criminals, for the toxic chemicals in the water, for the gas panic, for the fact that most of the refugees in the superdome were black, for causing a shortage of personnel to to the Iraq war (which is clearly NOT the case given the numbers of troops currently in New Orleans right now), cripes... every single angle of this is being blamed on Bush even though things are pretty much the same way they've been for years and years and New Orleans is run by democrats.

I guess some people are still bitter about the 2000 election...

Re:Wow that's creepy

[Doc Ruby]

Here we have revealed the bare Bush blame-game talking points. In pure essence. First, try to say the New Orleans damage wasn't bad. Then, blame the "human-caused damage" on the humans, the New Orleanians. Then, when a rational person is outraged by your gibberish, spin it into some kind of impossibly parsed meaning, and swerve into blaming the Democrats, governor of LA and mayor of New Orleans.

Next you'll spout that "no one anticipated that the levees would break".

You certainly won't be quoting the fact that LA Governor Blanco asked Bush for, and was told she was getting, military assistance, days before the event. Or that she was offered NM National Guard (from Democrat Governor Richardson) before the event, but the required Bush admin approval didn't arrive until 4 days after the disaster. Or the huge relief ship that's been bobbing offshore since the disaster, waiting on the Bush admin go-ahead.

Or that the mayor isn't responsible for the levees or most other crisis management: Bush and his hirelings are. Or that Bush can send in the military legally, even if the governor or mayor didn't. Or that he could have sent them in anyway, even if it were illegal, to save everyone, and no one would have said anything. Or even if anyone did say anything, he'd get off. Or even if he didn't get off, that's what leaders do: they sacrifice to save their people.

You didn't mention that Bush heard about the devastation, and went to California to make a political speech instead. Or that he went golfing on Friday, as Gulf Coasters continued to die.

Nah, why would you tell the truth? You're a ghoul, to whom thousands of Americans dying are just a chance to lie about politics. You are a subhuman pig. When the floods rise in Sioux Falls, you better hope that your government comes to the rescue. Or maybe you're just depending on your rifle to keep you dry. You probably worship Bush because you hate the government, ignoring how they subsidize your paycheck at the nursing home, and are happy about the way he's proving the rightwing theory that "government can't do anything right". You are a dangerous fool.

Scathing Editorial from Keith Olbermann on MSNBC

[squidsoup]

This is simply stunning - the most succinct and eloquant summation of the situation this far.

http://media.putfile.com/OlbermannSwings

From the opinion piece:

Most chillingly of all, this is the Law and Order and Terror government. It promised protection -- or at least amelioration -- against all threats: conventional, radiological, or biological. It has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological weapon called standing water.

I gave my alternative, but

[jd]

It may not have been entirely clear so I'll restate it. The first priority is to provide the very best possible accomodation to those evacuated. You are correct, all other concerns are secondary to saving lives.

While that is taking place, physical and mental health experts need to do a thorough check on the displaced population and provide the absolute level-best treatment where treatment is required. This, to me, also falls into the category of saving lives.

ALSO while that is taking place, economists, sociologists and any other relevent experts need to be running impact forecasts to find the absolute best way to place the displaced population to minimize stress on both those displaced AND those whose areas are being moved into.

ALSO while that is taking place, politicians need to beef up funding for those States people are moving into, so that social programs can accomodate the extra population. (This will involve more than just shifting funds around, as these people will need MORE per person than those who are already settled. This means a serious cash injection.)

They should also give a cash injection comparable to the expected economic impact. For example, it is doubtful many of these people escaped with functioning cars. Existing mass transit systems (where they exist) are on the edge of economic collapse and won't be able to handle the extra demand without support. It would be logical, therefore, for the Federal Government to provide money specifically for putting every available tram, bus and train in service (and to require that States actually do that, rather than divert the funds to pet projects).

Finally, the Federal Government should be looking to fund an emergency R&D program for the decontamination effort. And they should be doing so now. Nobody has ever had to decontaminate an area comparable to the entire British Isles. Most decontamination efforts are crude - the soil is simply replaced - which won't work on that scale and certainly won't work on land that is built on. There is no existing technique for handling a combined biological and chemical hazard that will work, so a new technique will have to be devised. That won't happen overnight, so if anyone plans on starting decontamination work this side of 2100, they'd best start funding a program to figure out how to do so.

If all of that was being done, there would be next to zero crisis. People would know that something was being done, that what was being done was deliberate and competent, and that the necessary resources would be there when needed.

If even one or two of these things were being done, it would likely be massively reassuring.

The truth is that NONE of it is being done. There will be extra burdens on everyone, but no extra resources to deal with them. There will be no serious decontamination work, so I fully expect serious health problems for those who move back. Everyone (other than the rich) will suffer for absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

Re:Odd story about Katrina victims.

[swillden]

My neighborhood is very prosperous with the average home size > 4000ft2 and price > $600k.

So, what you're saying is that you have room in your house and have invited some of them to come live with you until they can get back on their feet, right?

Re:Wow that's creepy

[Doc Ruby]

"I have taken appropriate action under state law and directed the execution of the State Emergency Plan on August 26, 2005, in accordance with Section 401 of the Stafford Act. A State of Emergency has been issued for the State in order to support the evacuations of the coastal areas and the remainder of the state to support the State Evacuation and Sheltering Plan."

- LA Governor Blanco, letter to President Bush and FEMA, August 28, 2005.

The hurricane struck on August 29, and the city flooded on August 30. A week later, and federal support is still just arriving.

I find it hard to believe that this is the first you are hearing of these facts, which are simple, indeed intuitive. Instead, I believe that you'd rather repeat the lies Bush is saying to cover his ass from this unforgiveable failure.

Re:Odd story about Katrina victims.

[jd]

I firmly believe that welfare programs should provide support when other systems fail. Here, we have the worst possible failure - a complete and total collapse of ALL infrastructure for a gigantic area.

No, I do not believe controlled migration is a good idea. What I do believe is a good idea is supported migration. If an area is going to suddenly face meeting the needs of N extra people, then it should be able to acquire the resources needed to support N extra people. Once integration is complete, everything should balance itself out. Until it does, however, you can't expect the newcomers to survive on hot air and vaporware.

My concern is that we're going to get a lot of mass migrations with absolutely zero backup. No support, no supplies, no resources of any kind. If that is indeed the case, it will be a disaster for those who have been displaced and a catastrophe for everyone else.

It is time the Federal Government woke up and smelled the coffee. There are no "Get Out Of Crisis Free" cards in real life. This is going to cost, and it is going to cost a lot. It is going to require considerably more planning than has been done, to get things to function smoothly, and is going to be a logistical nightmare without some damn good experts developing a way to do this effectively.

With the airlines on the edge of bankrupcy, Greyhound slashing services to and beyond the bone, Amtrak contemplating suicide and most of the military in Iraq, HOW are the people going to be moved around the country in anything like a meaningful timeframe?

The answer would seem obvious enough - all of these have the means to move the population, they just don't have the money. It would be trivial for the Government to pay Greyhound to move every single unused bus to an evacuation point and carry the people around the country. They could pay Amtrak to do it. The airlines aren't short of capacity, they're short of cash.

Is this happening? So far, I've not heard of a single extra dime going towards paying for the mass exodus.

What happens when they get to where they're going? Who is going to pay for their shelter? For the uninsured or the elderly, where is the extra money for medicare going to come from? And for those insured by companies based in a flooded-out area, nobody is going to take an insurance card from a company that might never reopen so what are they going to do?

My gripe is that there is a great deal you need to do to get this kind of operation to work well, rather than to end in a disaster for all concerned, and that the Federal Government isn't doing any of it. If they're going to get bugger all support, they would probably be better off building a refugee camp and relying on aid from the Red Cross and other organizations that will, at least, come through for them.

As of the political situation right now, the choice is between being camped in dismal conditions but at least getting basic needs met, or being ferried to God-Knows-Where (assuming the Federal Government even bothered telling God), finding the social services simply don't have any extra cash, and ending up homeless on the street.

My personal preference would be for the Federal Government to fund social programs adequately (for a change) and for the evacuees to have living conditions worth the living.

My biggest concern is that right-wingers generally don't believe in social programs at all and may well prefer people homeless on the streets to being visible in a camp.

My next-biggest concern is that the right-wing may attempt to use the disaster to prove that social programs aren't needed. (If you don't need extra money for an extra ten or hundred thousand, then maybe you don't need any money at all.) With this Government in particular, but America in general, fearing the worst in politicians seems to be a generally good idea.

Re:3901 Metropolitan Street, New Orleans, LA

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so you know, a typical school bus is rated to fit 70 children. You'll be lucky to get 40 average people in one, let alone adults carrying the personal belongings one typically evacuates with.

I found this out the hard way when a naive driver, just off her route taking home some elementary school students, came to take the high school hockey team (20 guys) to a game. She figured that her bus was rated to hold 40+, so 20 guys would be no problem. The bus ended up fitting the hockey team and some of their gear; the rest had to be loaded onto the coaches' cars and driven separately.

The problem with this idea is that it just wouldn't work very well. People who could evacuate by car already did. You would pretty much only be carrying those who could not drive, and picking them up is not nearly as simple driving around looking for them on the street.

Hell, it takes an hour to do a typical school bus's morning pickups, and that's when the driver knows where to find the kids, the kids are already on the street waiting for the bus, and the route doesn't go more than a couple miles from the school. Keeping in mind that the ones who haven't already gotten out of town are probably eldery or poor with lots of children, can you imagine how long it would take to find all of the people who couldn't evacuate, give them time to get ready, and load them on the bus?

What do you do when you get to Baton Rouge? Drive around until you run out of gas? Find a hotel with a few dozen empty rooms? Drop them off at the city limits?

My guess is the 200 buses would evacuate 5000 people to who-knows-where. Maybe it would be better than nothing, but I can understand why they didn't attempt it.

dom

Re:Wow that's creepy

[orthogonal]

...I was making reference to.... the incompetence of the Mayor of NO and the governor of LA.


Here's the simple take-home point:

Do you think your city, your family and loved ones, will be safe when it is your city that needs to be evacuated?

With Katrina we had several days' notice of a disaster -- and you use that to blame Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.

But the next terrorist attack will give no warning. The attacked city will be relying entirely on FEMA -- there'll be no Nagin, no Blanco for apologists to blame.

Some four years after September 11th, both FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security have demonstrated that they can't protect Americans -- indeed, their leaders in abject and total failure can only blithely deny news footage we're seeing with our own eyes.


The fundamental purpose of any government -- as any conservative will tell you -- is the protection of its citizens.

In the last four years, our "leaders" have ignored crucial evidence preceding the September 11th attacks, have failed to get those responsible, have been willingly fooled by colossally bad intelligence about WMDs in Iraq, have fired those who correctly predicted we'd need far more troops to avoid a quagmire in Iraq, and have now let thousands of your fellow Americans die from their incompetence and lack of preparedness.

Our so-called "leaders" have repeatedly failed to uphold their end of the social contract. One "understandable" mistake after another -- and no one's been fired except whistle-blowers and those who were in retrospect proven right in their predictions.


How many more mistakes rewarded by Presidential Medals of Freedom will you tolerate? How many more Americans must die from sheer incompetent failure at the highest level of government before you find your anger?

How much longer will you trust your life, your children's lives, and your country's future, to the "protection" of these miserable failures?

How much longer?

Re:Odd story about Katrina victims.

[Zibblsnrt]

A lot of the objections to using the word "refugee" to describe the Katrina refugees seem to boil down to the idea that Americans can't be refugees, since refugees are those other people. It's pride, not grammar, which is at stake.

While I've seen some people with legitimate objections (even though I don't really buy the validity of a highly politically-motivated redefinition of a word which has been in use for a long time indeed), most of the complaints I've heard about the word really do boil down to that. It's not objection to the word; it's denial that it's being applied to us, something which feels like an insult when it really isn't anything more than a simple statement of fact.

-PS

Accusations of racism are ridiculous

[ccmay]

When predominantly white areas are affected by hurricanes, FEMA is much quicker to respond.

Got any proof of that, or are you just parroting the anti-Bush talking points?

The Feds always take two or three days to show up, and five to seven days to reach full strength. Local authorities are ALWAYS responsible for the first 72-96 hours of a disaster, that's how all the plans are made, and it's primarily because of the dithering incompetence of the local Democratic pols and the collapse of the New Orleans police department that so many people could not be rescued this time.

The military won't put people and equipment directly into the path of a hurricane, lest they become victims themselves and lose their airlift capability. But shortly after the storm passes, they pour in.

Military air, sea, and land operations began on Aug. 30, and in fact, there were more than twice as many soldiers on duty by day 5 of Katrina than on day 5 of Andrew in 1992. And that's after moving them in over a much larger area than Andrew affected. You can't wave a magic wand and move people and machines in an instant, but that seems to be what some of the ignorant anti-Bush ranters are expecting.

Unless you have invented a Star trek transporter beam, just can the ill-informed bitching and do what you can to help, OK?

-ccm

Re:Accusations of racism are ridiculous

[rtb61]

I thought the delay might have been the result of some rather intense contract negotiations. I mean there were some existing "agreements" in place but some would have argued that this was a exceptional circumstance and required some additional "consideration". Big disaster, big profits for some. Conspiracies are hardly ever required, greed and stupidity will generally suffice.

Federal government responce time should be based on need alone (if you think anything greater than 24 hours in acceptable for a strong inital responce than I know where your balance of cost and human lives lies).

Seriously how do you expect state and local government to cope with a major disaster when their ability to do so has been basically destroyed (if they were all dead would you complain because they haven't removed their own bodies).

Re:Wow that's creepy

[loqi]

What I find interesting is that one of us made an opinion based off research and one of us is parroting the beliefs or facts as reported from a single partisan source.

I'd like to point out with my powers of hindsight that one of the sources of this information is the Louisiana government.

If some of my sources or views do not agree with what mainstream "Republicans" are saying, than so be it. I am more comfortable drawing an opinion from a wide collection of sources and thought than from a single party line or source. ...I'll leave off the Winston Churchill quote

Is it smug in here, or is it you? If you gather information from a "wide collection of sources" and they're not all in agreement, do you just throw your hands up in the air and moan "who's to say", or do you use that 3-pound lump of blood and tissue in your skull to connect that information, look for patterns, draw your own conclusions? If you were honestly drawing an opinion from a wide collection of sources, and you were interested in relevant action instead of saving face, you'd be blaming Bush too.

Why? Because maybe if enough people had blamed Bush and his administration of hacks back in 2001 instead of "uniting in the face of disaster", Bush would have learned that ignoring warnings and facts until they've generated a crisis for you isn't acceptable conduct for the president of the United States.