We live in the 21st Century, but a hurricane and flood has overwhelmed us. The sympathy for the victims leads to anger at how the situation is being handled, and makes a proper response now and in the future that much more important. The failure of leadership, one David Brooks just mentioned on the News Hour, is thus ever more sad.
Jane Galt, the libertarian blogger, is cited a few times by Mark Kleiman* -- the drug policy expert/bloggist with a centrist/strongly anti-Bush outlook. Kleiman as usual supplies some good analysis, this time of the various sides of Katrina. Part of this analysis was some strong words respecting how the federal government (or rather, the Bush Administration) is handling things. I wonder if JG thinks he is among those who allegedly are using the dead for political points.
Anyway, JG is more evenhanded than some voices (including the current director of FEMA), including those that in effect are blaming people for not leaving their homes in part because they had no means to leave or because they were afraid of leaving their life's possessions (which they are too poor to replace) behind. Rush Limbaugh is particularly crude respecting the majority of black citizens suffering. There's also the President's "no tolerance" policy that does not exempt those who take food and water while supply chains are absent. It is so simple to say, "looting is wrong, but food and water is different from stealing television sets." But, no, morons lead us.
[Moron alert: The third charity, after the Red Cross and some food related resource, on FEMA's website is Pat Robertson's charity. It was second.]
Back to Galt etc. Kleiman supports Galt's general sentiment that it is both economically and humanely reasonable for gas prices to shoot up given shortages related to the hurricane's effects. [TalkLeft supplies a good window into other effects, including on local courts.] This is sound -- there probably is some limit, especially if the resources involved are necessary and the people who need them [this does not include most people around the country whose gas costs more], for which the prices should not rise above. It is not like there are no limits, but overall, the sentiment is correct. Immediate pain would over time turn out to be good for us.
Also, there is the question of what to do in the future. Some suggest New Orleans should not be rebuilt where it once stood, while a few wonder if the levees should have been fixed in the past at all. The problem -- an issue not only for libs (the anger, however, is not just from Air America** sorts -- CNN reporters et. al. are starting to be rather upset) -- is one that deserves serious consideration. I don't see how they could not be fixed while the city is still open to harm, but now that the damage is done, consideration for the future should (as MK notes) be a primary concern.
Various citizens live in areas where natural disasters are an ever threat, and society must consider the issue before disaster strikes. A "well they live there, they made their bed, let them lie in it" mentality is just not feasible. It is not only a bit too cruel, but not totally accurate. For instance, generally, the major damage to New Orleans is not as expected as those who live in tornado country or on the San Andreas Fault. Still, the danger was out there -- aside from what el presidente claimed on television. It is a plain failure of our leaders -- local and national -- that this was left to go on.
As to that last point, blame can be spread around. But, I do think the criticism of the feds is on some level truly justified. First, many resources that would have been available was sent over to Iraq -- this is what state militia (National Guard, a bit of a misnomer) are meant for -- not international adventures. [As an aside, Charles Krauthammer makes some good points today, though his editorial makes no mention of women or some other problems with the proposed constitution ... but it's more reasonable than his usual work.] Second, FEMA has been mishandled by many accounts in the last few years. And, finally, this is a national (Sen. Lott, of Mississippi, lost his home too) disaster and requires a national response. And, the response has been problematic -- especially, the lack of leadership from above.
Kevin Drum (Washington Monthly/Political Animal) at first (until things went out of hand) joined Galt's sentiment that we should not use this as some sort of political football, an excuse to criticize the Bush Administration. She noted that if he met with Cindy Sheenan, this sort of complaint would not have happened. Well, that didn't help, but as Kleiman notes, it's not wrong to criticize when things goes wrong. It is not wrong to use tragedy as a launching pad for fixing the problem (isn't that what you know who did with 9/11?). Maybe next time, delays will not led to cruel problems in the harsh early days of the disaster.
[I'd add, having just seen some guy from Wall St Journal on C-SPAN oh so primly saying that we should not play the "blame game" (he admitted "mistakes were made" -- so apparently broke his own rule), that such sentiments on some level are heartless. I recall the negative feelings, however exaggerated by news accounts, after Sen. Wellstone died in a plane crash a few years ago. Are we not human beings? Will we not have some emotional moments, including some need to place blame, perhaps excessively so? To ask the question is to answer it really, especially given some of the base of the "other side," who has their own intemperate passions. But, such humane sentiments apparently are hard for some sorts to understand, including certain "Christians."]
And, as some comments on JG's blog notes, if not now, when? Are we to complain months from now, when the people aren't focused on the problem? Some calm reflection is useful, as shown by trials done long after the crime, but it also sometimes doesn't work. People move on and think about other things. And, there is some whitewashing of the events, the f-ups forgotten or ignored. This sounds a bit too much like those who didn't want people to criticize the war once it started. Apparently, once a police officer actually starts beating a suspect, railing against police brutality is wrong -- criticizing our peace troops. I thought that bullshit in 3/03, I think it bullshit now.
I am tired actually of this bullshit. I really don't want to focus my energy on our stupid leadership, but I have always been interested in public affairs (before OD-ing on online stuff, I kept up with newsmagazines and talk shows, and loved editorials), and this is what is blanketing out everything else. A local paper criticized a person running in my district as only having two qualifications -- union membership and working hard all his life. This is a bit unfair (the guy has some other qualifications), but my thought was "well, that's not bad." Life is messy, but you live it out the best you can. If this is the best we can do, it is just not good enough.
Bottom line: forget about party lines (some mention was made to the democratic senator from Louisiana, who was challenged by a reporter for too much patting on the back of fellow politicians in the face of a underwhelming response), stolen elections, political assholes (e.g., Rove visited the counterprotest across the way from Cathy Sheenan) , and so on. How is this being handled? Is it being run like a business?
---
* Kleiman has often at various times been kind enough to answer emails (he does not have a comment feature) respecting some of his posts.
** Air America is taking this issue and running with it, the afternoon and early evening shows especially informed and outraged. This is a good mix. The brainaic Rachel Maddow is filling in for Al Franken and provides some great commentary while opening the lines for comments. I do wish RW had a co-host, since she is a bit dry without one. It was better when she had Liz Winstead.
Mike Malloy, the late night guy, is back from sick leave. MM despises Bush (his rants clouds his news background, but when he calms down, it shows) and particularly underlined the cruelty of no tolerance for those who need food and water. His hatred is honestly felt, mixed with despair, sometimes you can feel him fighting back angry tears when he speaks as a father (three adult children, all with jobs in the public sector, and a new baby). He is a bit over the top, and at times moves into conspiracy territory, but his anger is a catharsis.