** This thread discusses the article: Cut-Rate and Other Parasites **
** This thread discusses the Content article: Cut-Rate and Other Parasites **
0
** This thread discusses the Content article: Cut-Rate and Other Parasites **
0
People tend to compare Katrina and 9/11, and while they were vastly differing circumstances, you'll note that the primary response was by New York City and to a lesser degree New York State. Where were the New Orleans and Louisiana support teams during those crucial hours just before and after Katrina?The physical destruction of 9/11 was limited to a relatively small area. If memory serves me correctly (not always a good bet), I think that it was nine square blocks. Outside of that area, police, fire and ambulance stations were still standing and operational; hospitals were fully functional; and municipal buildings had power and other services. Roads were passable. Firefighters went to the scene of a fire, open a hydrant and water came out. People could go home and, when they turned on the tap, potable water came out; when they flipped the switch on their lights, stoves, televisions and other appliances, they came on; when they flushed their toilets the waste water went to the sewage treatment plant. What's more, the surrounding areas were not physically affected and the first responders outside of NYC did not suffer losses of life, so they could help if needed. I recognize that the emotional and psychological loss extended well beyond those nine square blocks and, in fact, well beyond NYC. People around the world, even those who did not lose loved ones, felt the pain as fellow human beings watching the tragedy unfold in real-time on their television screens. I don't want to diminish that loss in any way. But in terms of the city’s and state’s physical infrastructure that was used to deal with the emergency, that damage was limited to a relatively small area. Contrast that with the destruction caused by Katrina. After the levees burst 80% of New Orleans was flooded. That includes fire, ambulance and police stations, along with civic buildings that were needed for city workers to coordinate the emergency measures. Sewage was overflowing into the city rather than going to the treatment plants. People (and city services) had no clean water and no electricity. Hospitals that could still be occupied were operating without those basic necessities. And, what didn’t get as much play in the media as it probably deserved, New Orleans wasn't the only place affected. Katrina devastated a large swath along the Gulf Coast. As a result, many of the surrounding areas were too busy dealing with their own emergencies to help New Orleans. In addition, I've never done a comparative study of the economies of the various American states, so somebody please correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that New York State is a fair bit wealthier than Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama (the Katrina-affected states). And New York City is a fair bit wealthier than New Orleans. Consequently, New York City and State probably had more resources at their disposal to deal with 9/11 than New Orleans had to deal with Katrina. If 9/11 had been more like Katrina would the Mayor and Governor of New York City and State have responded any better than the Mayors and Governors of the areas affected by Katrina? I don't know, and because they weren’t tested in the same way, I don’t think that anyone can know for sure. One disadvantage (although the words "advantage" and "disadvantage" sound like horribly wrongs word to use in the case of disasters like 9/11 and Katrina) that NYC might have faced in having a relatively geographically contained disaster is that they had a specific place to send first responders and they had the roads and vehicles to get them there. As a result, many valiant first responders lost their lives during 9/11. If 9/11 had been more like Katrina, if NYC had not had one specific place to send its first responders, nor the means to get them there if it did, then maybe instead of, very deservedly, describing those first responders of NYC as heroes, we would instead be describing them as lacking in their initial response. You said:
It seems to me, and I may be wrong, but a lot of the finger pointing is of the type that people use to deflect the blame.I think that, at least in the initial phases, the investigations should not attempt to assess blame. Instead, they should attempt to learn lessons--what was done right and what was done wrong--so that when the next disaster hits, the response can be better. The problem with starting off by assessing blame and, as you, I think quite correctly, say, finger-pointing, is that it forces everyone involved to adopt defensive positions that obscure the facts, and I don't think that's what's needed. Blame can come later. Now we need to learn lessons because another "Katrina" will happen. Maybe it won't be a hurricane or a terrorist attack the next time. Maybe it will be an earthquake, a burst dam or some other disaster that we can’t imagine. But something will happen, because bad things happen to good planets. It’s inevitable. The more prepared we are by learning from our past mistakes and successes, the better off we'll be. Joel
Comment