Jump to content

Talk:Criticism of the government response to Hurricane Katrina/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between August 28 and September 9, 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Pre-POV dispute note

  1. It is very, very important from the outset that we keep this article POV-free.
  2. This is something of a placeholder - the true political ramifications will likely be judged by debates in Congress over environmental and infrastructure policies, and ultimately perhaps by the outcome of the next elections.

-- BD2412 talk 02:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

That is virtually impossible. What some view as NPOV is POV for others, on both sides of the fence. CrazyC83 21:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, at the very least we can strive to present facts, source observations, and not attribute motives to people involved (although we can report that others have made such specific attributions). I have faith that a fairly NPOV product can emerge from this process. :-D -- BD2412 talk 21:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Politics is POV by definition. So if you want NPOV, then remove everything in this article. Wallie 08:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the comments by Kayne West. There are plenty of more knowledgable sources that can speak to the issue of racism (which *should* be addressed!). Wikipedia should not provide a platform for someone to forward his career by piggybacking on this issue, and his comments seem to be particularly ill-informed.

Attribution

Some material on this page was taken from the Hurricane Katrina article. -- BD2412 talk 02:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

CNN ran an article on rebuilding New Orleans... Should be in this article http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/01/hastert.katrina.ap/index.html/ SYSS Mouse 03:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Usage

The phrase "civil disobedience" in the passage "...control of widespread looting and other civil disobedience..." is incorrect in this context, as civil disobedience connotes a principled, non-violent stand against unjust laws or social conditions. I have replaced it with the phrase "civil unrest."

unsigned edit by 66.168.215.208

Political Response to Hurricane Katrina

As of now, this article raises alot of question, but offer little facts directly relevant to political effect. It seems that political effect would come abit later. Why not move this to Political Response to Hurricane Katrina (or similar title), and describe how did the political leaders (POTUS, Congressman, Governors, etc) response to Hurricane Katrina? In this way, we can focus more on facts rather than commentary. Political effect can be described later after-the-fact. --Vsion 05:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Politics being politics, I think the facts and the commentary are going to be closely tied together. The criticisms going back and forth on talk radio today will be talking points in Congressional debates and political campaigns tomorrow. -- BD2412 talk 14:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • How's this for another political point of view? The disaster is massive and everyone is simply trying their level best to provide relief and start repairs. Time for real people to do the real work - politicos and politicians shut up about blame and start signing your names on checks.--207.154.79.131 11:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Sources and quotes

This could become an important article. I expect the debate and recriminations on this event will go on endlessly, as it does with the Iraq War. What the article needs right now is a fleshing out of the issues listed. For example, a number of politicians and activists have made comments on the global warming issue, and I am sure there are several articles about the actions taken by various politicians (the Prez, The Gov, The Mayor). We need quotes and sources to develop each listed issue into its own section. NoSeptember 09:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

A source for the Dennis Hastert controversy: [1]. --Titoxd 02:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Natural disaster?

The text mentions the effect of changes to bankruptcy with respect to natural disasters. A natural disaster would be a hurricane hit on a city above sea level. For a city below sea level with woefully inadequate protection, the term natural doesn't seem right; it's a man-made disaster. This was argued by an author of the New Orleans Times-Picayune article series (mentioned in predictions) when he was interviewed on Australian public radio, ABC, on 1st September.

unsigned edit by 144.135.190.104
  • The point is certainly arguable, but bear in mind that the storm was certainly a "natural disaster" with respect to the displaced residents of Mississippi (where at least 110 people have died, and where the city of Waveland was "wiped off the map", and Trent Lott's home was destroyed), as well as Alabama, Florida, and the rest of Louisiana outside of New Orleans. The narrow media focus on New Orleans has likely been to the detriment of those living in surrounding states. Also, even if New Orleans were above sea level, it still would have suffered considerable damage from a storm of this magnitude, and in a few instances it might be difficult to assess how different the damage would be. -- BD2412 talk 14:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • See also Forgotten town suffers, too small to be noticed
  • A category 5 hurricane directly striking New Orleans was calculated to be a one in 500 year event by the Army Corps of Engineers. Unless this is disproved, this was a circumstance of chance, not of obviously poor planning.
    • It was a Cat 3 at landfall which didn't directly hit New Orleans.

Partisan Sniping

"Whether this whole article is just written by and for Bush-haters who refuse to admit that everything that has happened would have also likely to have happened had John Kerry been in office and not George W. Bush."

I rest my case. Frightening thing is, the point is valid.

unsigned edit by 64.202.11.2
  • I don't see the article as sniping at Bush in particular - it's presenting both sides of the issues, and is basically only accurately reporting what the political fallout after the hurricane has actually been. If anything, it shows that our entire political system is in need of an overhaul. -- BD2412 talk 01:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I do detect an anti-Bush bias. It is pretty biased. All criticisms leveled against Mayor Nagin are heavily caveated with "it is unclear if he could have done this without this or that". Any criticisms of the Federal government (Bush) do not provide any caveats.

  • Much of that has been added since my last comment, but feel free to provide caveats as appropriate. My personal "POV" here (which I'm trying not to express in the article) is that every government official who touched this (or should have, but didn't) in the first week or so managed to make things worse. Nagin blew it. Blanco blew it. Barbour blew it. Bush blew it. Period. The very idea that folks are trying to lay blame is ridiculous - everyone is to blame, because if any one of them had not screwed up, those under their watch would have suffered much less. -- BD2412 talk 04:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

RE: Race and Class - "When federal response did start arriving..."

It seems that the characterization of looters as halting relief efforts is premature. We know there has been shooting. We know that it has hampered relief efforts. We don't know who is shooting. Should there be references sited for this? I assume most of this will be erased shortly enough.

--"When federal response did start arriving, much of it was focused on stopping looters, some of whom had reportedly delayed the delivery of vital relief. Louisiana Gov... "--

--Genobeeno 01:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

After a thorough read, the article seems to meet NPOV criteria. After all, politicians from both sides of the aisle have agreed that the relief efforts were extremely slow, including President Bush himself. I'm tempted to be bold and remove the tag... --Titoxd 02:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any glaring problems. The summary of political criticisms is handled quite well, in fact, although it's an odd sort of section for an article like this. If User:CrazyC83 cannot outline specific violations of neutrality which the community can then correct, the NPOV tag should be removed. --Dhartung | Talk 02:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I put NPOV tag on local responce-louisian part, NewsMAX have many news that proved to be wrong,(like they claim Governor Blanco did not issue state of emergency as of Sept 3, which is proved to be false) another source is from Republican website, I would mind people about this.--C.levin 21:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Louisiana

There are severe problems with this section. In particular the paragraph 'There have reports that Governor Blanco was reluctant to issue a mandatory evacuation order until President Bush called to personally ask that she give the order. [18] At the 28 August press conference in which Nagin and Blanco ordered the evacuation of New Orleans, Blanco actually said that Bush had called "just before we walked into this room" to share his concerns and urge that the city be evacuated. [19]' can only be characterised as grossly distorted. (1) The Media Matters link on the claim with respect to the Bush call prodding Blanco is headed 'Chavez, Murdock advanced dubious claim that Bush convinced Blanco to evacuate New Orleans ' and actually concludes the Bush call was too late to have been a part of Blanco's decision. (2) The mandatory evacuation order was actually issued by Nagin, not Blanco. [2] The paragraph should be rewritten and we should not be citing links that actually contradict what our text alleges. To quote the referenced page: 'As Media Matters for America has previously documented, there is little evidence to support this contention.' Alan 19:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

POV - Bush

"Whether this whole article is just written by and for Bush-haters who refuse to admit that everything that has happened would have also likely to have happened had John Kerry been in office and not George W. Bush."

Were John Kerry the President, he would not be hiding. He'd be as incoherent as ever, but he'd have taken charge instantly, and be standing in New Orleans at this very moment -looking for all the world like the same fence-post we saw in the 2004 Debates. But he'd be doing the right thing. Not hiding in the White House, cheerily talking about "pushing through dark times", and launching a private fundraising campaign.

But to remain on topic: this article is POV - but that is obvious from the title, and first few lines. Most of the text on this page will be replaced in the comming weeks and months with more accurate summaries of news. For now, keep in mind that those who do not follow the same POV as this page will disagree with it, and realise it for what it is: a politicaly motivated article. -- unsigned comment by User:Jkarp

No crystal ball, please. The article has a large potential to be POV, that's why we need to keep up trying to distinguish what's factual and what's opinion. For example, if Democrats began politicizing this thing, that would cause a lot of criticism, which should be noted here too. Try to write on the things already said, like how Ray Nagin blew up and lost his head on radio in anger because of the slow relief efforts. --Titoxd 02:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
The article documents points of view, but the article itself is not POV. I hope you understand what that means in Wikipedia terms; if you don't, please reread the Neutral point of view policy. --Dhartung | Talk 02:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I understand WP:NPOV, I've been here quite a while. However, what I ask is, what in the article isn't NPOV? I don't see anything here that isn't being mentioned in C-SPAN (where I'm getting my baseline for neutral bias), MSNBC, CNN, or even Fox News. Instead of criticism, might I ask for suggestions, instead? --Titoxd 02:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
The indentation I used was at the same level as your comment. That means it is a reply to Jkarp, not you. --Dhartung | Talk 07:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
For the record, I think the title and the first few lines are about as NPOV as you can get on Wikipedia. All they are saying is that political effects exist, what their basic nature was, and how they will ultimately be measured. -- BD2412 talk 03:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

If you like George Bush or his mate Tony Blair best friend and staunch ally of the USA, now is you time to say it. All politics is POV, and alls fair. However, if you get lots of POVs, then it becomes NPOV. Simple. As far as I can see the Politics section is probably the only funny part of this whole sorry episode. After all, the politicians still travel first class, have nice suits, and will go away and play golf in a week or two after the fuss has subsided. If you think this is POV, it sure is. Wallie 08:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

five days because of race?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1452490.htm

Yummy! 10.5 billion beautiful bucks. Wonder who will get that! Wallie 09:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's be careful and on the lookout for any liberal bias that creeps into the article

New Orleans had plenty of budget to fix the levees themselves if they thought they were important. They also had been warned in published scientific studies that a signficant part of the population did not have private transportation, and thus could not evacacuate despite the adequate warning of the hurricanes coming. There was no pre-hurricane evacuation plan by the municipality for these people. Then of course, there is the question of whether the people would have taken advantage of the warning. Many who could have left stayed. One aspect of liberal bias is to make the totalitarian assumption that the highest level of government is reponsible for all planning. Most of the responsibility has to on the the individuals who liberals label as "victims". Did these individual have plans for getting out of the city in time, had they saved money for such a contigency, etc.--Silverback 08:06, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I will make sure there are no Liberals lurking around. Are they dangerous? Leistung 10:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Only when in positions of power, or when encouraging rioting, "mass action democracy".--Silverback 11:16, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
From what I heard, they had been planning at some point to fix the levee but ran out of funding for that project? (This is heard word of mouth from someone whose parent is in the Army Corp of Engineers.) Can anyone confirm or reject this? We certainly don't know the circumstances involved here, so let's not blame people yet... evacuations are always a messy proposition and a state that is generally unprepared for a direct hit - both in terms of state and city level, as well as individual planning and attitudes - will have a even worse problem of evacuating a huge city.Janet13 04:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, Silverback is right – these biased Liberals, more often called the neocons nowadays, are the ideological successors of the Malthusian Whigs whose Poor Law reforms aimed at making the poor become self reliant or die trying, or more humanely forced them to emigrate to the colonies – any connection to the invasion of Iraq?....dave souza 21:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Problematic POV-containing passage deleted

I've just removed the following two paragraphs from the "Preparation" section:

Despite the controversy and risk, national authorities remained unconcerned as the storm approached. Plenty of National Guard were on call, and the federal government was standing by to deliver aid to wherever Katrina would ultimately hit. New Orleans, at first, seemed to have gotten off lightly when the bulk of Katrina passed with the levees holding back the swelled water. Some of them, weakened by a storm stronger than they had been designed for, breached after Katrina moved on, flooding the city and catching prepared rescuers off guard. Work was begun almost immediately by the Army Corps of Engineers to seal the levees, but the damage was already done.
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did appreciate a serious storm but these levees got breached and as a result much of New Orleans is flooded and now we're having to deal with it and will." — President George W. Bush.
Pretty much what everyone thought at the time. The storm missed New Orelans. Whats all the fuss about? I know I did at the time. The situation has changed. No one is blaming Bush for that. He just has to deal with things as they are at the time. I don't see what is wrong with these paragraphs, and why they should be removed. They explain the mindset at the time. If anyone thinks this makes Bush look bad, these people are plain stupid. No one can predict the future. Leistung 15:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
The passage statement about "unconcerned" is false, since the unusual step of declaring disaster areas beforehand was taken, and the federal government contacted the mayor of New Orleans to suggest a mandatory evacuation.--Silverback 18:59, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. "Unconcerned" may have been the public perception, but I'm sure there would have been great concern bordering on panic behind the scenes, at all levels. It is always important for authorities to be cool at times like this, and take decisions calmly. Leistung 07:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm placing this passage here in case someone feels strongly about bringing it back. If that happens, though, I encourage whoever does so to give it a thorough edit to remove the strong POV it contains. Indeed, as I read it, I'm not sure there's really much substance there at all, once you've taken out the POV-laden characterizations. For example:

  • "...national authorities remained unconcerned as the storm approached." Which authorities? How did they manifest their unconcern? Were there not national authorities who were expressing concern? I seem to recall, for example, warnings from the national weather service (not sure about what specific office it was; NOAA, maybe?) that were downright apocalyptic in tone in the day before the storm reached New Orleans.
  • "Plenty of National Guard were on call, and the federal government was standing by to deliver aid..." "Plenty" according to what criteria? Certainly there has been a lot of criticism about the slowness of the response. This sentence isn't factual information; it's an unsourced opinion.
  • "...flooding the city and catching prepared rescuers off guard." It seems logically suspect to say that someone caught off guard was in fact prepared. Isn't the avoidance of being caught off-guard one of the main goals of preparation?
  • "Work was begun almost immediately by the Army Corps of Engineers to seal the levees..." According to whom? I've read news accounts that cite days-long delays in the initiation of levee repairs, and one that speaks of a private contractor going ahead and reparing a levee on his own initiative after days of inaction by government authorities.
  • Bush's "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" quotation is directly refuted by numerous documented concerns about exactly that. To conclude this section with that statement, and to report it without offering any critical analysis, is POV. It's basically making the article a vehicle for a demonstrably false-to-fact political talking point.

I would normally hesitate to just remove a whole paragraph. I realize the policy is to edit, not delete, whenever possible. But after going through this paragraph, I don't think there's actually any factual, objective information worth keeping. It's simply POV pushing, and in my view, does not add to the information content of the article. -- John Callender 09:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I can see what you're trying to say, John. But I wouldn't say the paragraphs were intended as POV. Some things are true, but the author is probably hoping that some one will beef if up with more facts, or change the bits that are wrong. I think the author is trying to convey that everything was OK, even after the storm had passed through, and then suddenly it all went "pear shaped". Maybe you could have a go at repairing the paragraphs, leave it for a day or two, and if it is no going anywhere, remove it then (or someone else might). Leistung 16:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Content Questions

The page mentions "SELA" twice without saying what it is.

The page says "Though the levee system as a whole had yet to be completed". Surely that's incomplete. The levee system was complete, is what is meant strengthening and shoring up?

Conspiracy theories

Materials relating to conspiracy theories have now been moved to Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 01:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I've restored part of that material because those are political statements and IMO belong in this article. --The Bruce 01:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think assertions of supernatural causation are really "political"... I can see how it might be argued, but I worry that they will detract from the serious policy discussions and electoral consequences which will eventually be the focus of this article. -- BD2412 talk 01:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
The section needs to be written up more, but those statements are critical of political decisions of the past (legalising abortion and homosexuality, invading Iraq), part of a political agenda and could have a political effect. I'll work on making the section more relevant.--The Bruce 02:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I see your point. If you can keep it from descending to lunacy, have at it! -- BD2412 talk 02:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Somebody else added something about Noah, which I'm not sure about but tried to work in after an edit conflict, but I've tried to explain the political significance of these claims. Depending on whether or not the religious claims do exert any influence (and they might in terms of local and state politics in New Orleans and the South) I think this may eventually be best put together with other info on partisan responses and the "blame game" that's being played in various quarters.--The Bruce 03:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

from the blog of Amardeep Singh:

The Flood

by Robert Lee Frost

Blood has been harder to dam back than water.
Just when we think we have it impounded safe
Behind new barrier walls (and let it chafe!),
It breaks away in some new kind of slaughter.
We choose to say it is let loose by the devil;
But power of blood itself releases blood.
It goes by might of being such a flood
Held high at so unnatural a level.
It will have outlet, brave and not so brave.
weapons of war and implements of peace
Are but the points at which it finds release.
And now it is once more the tidal wave
That when it has swept by leaves summits stained.
Oh, blood will out. It cannot be contained.


This poem was published in 1928, in a collection called West-Running Brook.

I believe it is a response to the great Misssippi River flood of 1927, which killed and displaced thousands of people -- including, again, many African Americans. Herbert Hoover, one of the most incompetent Presidents in U.S. history, supervised the rescue efforts. His betrayal of African American victims of the flood led blacks to leave the Republican party, and may have changed the face of American politics.

Here is a PBS timeline detailing the events. The racial nastiness of the era makes this week's FEMA failure seem almost small.

With "blood," I think Frost is in some sense referring to the ugly human politics that came with (and followed) the disaster.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~amsp/2005/09/flood-by-robert-frost-and-1927.html

Foreign Media

At least nine and possibly many more tourists trapped by the New Orleans flood were rescued by foreign media. The media's role is important from a political viewpoint for two reasons - (1) how the foreign media gained unfettered access while foreign consular officials did not, and (2) the foreign media showing more initiative and evacuating people quicker than the US authorities. Successful rescues by foreign media should be documented..--Auswide 12:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This is documented here [3] Apparent a number of foreign tourists were told that they had to fend for themselves when it came to evacuation [4]. Jooler 16:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Why does bankruptcy law section belong?

This article is about the political effects of Katrina, not effects on Katrina victims. The impact that existing bankruptcy law would have on victims is not a political effect of Katrina. A political effect would be what Katrina causes to happen to bankruptcy law. I tried to make this section remotely relevant by saying that it's not yet clear what impact this would have on bankruptcy law (even that is stretching it - you could say it's not clear what effect Katrina will have on any law), but someone reverted at and added when the legislation will be proposed. I wanted to bring this up here because otherwise people will keep reverting my attempts to make the section relevant or move it. MrVoluntarist 19:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

  • The section belongs because either Congress will change the law to accommodate the needs of bankrupted victims, or those who desire such a change will make an issue of the failure to change it. -- BD2412 talk 19:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
That's a nice prediction. Until it happens, it's speculation, and thus does not belong in Wikipedia. (I'd link the section that says so but you're probably already familiar with it.) Now, if people are making the specualtions, and the speculations are being reporting in mainstream sources, then reporting about the speculation is warranted, provided the source is given. But the current article, as it stands, doesn't saying anything about this; it just talks about bankruptcy law. The causal connection to Katrina is nowhere given. MrVoluntarist 19:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
The new bankrupcy law is largely the creature of Senator Charles Grassley, Iowa (my senior senator). I've called him the "catamite of the usury lobby" and he was none to pleased. He's Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, but likes to claim how powerless he is. He's the bought-and-paid-for catamite of the credit card lobby.
Thanks for helping me establish that there really is no basis for the section as it currently stands. MrVoluntarist 17:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

"Divine retribution"?

Quote: Whether the hurricane was divine retribution for any of a wide array of alleged offenses. This quote was under "Political controversies and electoral consequences". I don't think that the US government would seriously be debating this issue. I am removing it for now. -- Bubbachuck 00:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Bear in mind that there are parts of the country where the "divine retribution" argument will directly motivate large numbers of people to vote in a particular way. -- BD2412 talk 00:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. But I don't evidence of political discourse on it, i.e. i don't see a senator or representative supporting that angle. it seems to be a position taken up by radicals and Islamic extremists (cited in the main article). -- Bubbachuck 04:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Shouldn't it be made clear that these "divine retribution" or "global warming" theories are not in the least scientific? I mean, obviously enough people believe in this, otherwise there would not be political impact... --212.34.171.12 09:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
        • The "global warming" theory is, by definition, scientific, as it suggests a series of specific forces leading to an outcome that could be repeated through experimentation. That's not to say it's a correct theory, but that we can leave to the scientists. "Divine retribution" theories are purely matters of faith, unless God (or Allah; or the IPU) reveals Him/Her/Itself to explain what exactly was the transgression that brought on the deluge. Of course, if someone was arguing that God was punishing us for allowing global warming (maybe a Gaian?), that would be the latter kind of theory. -- BD2412 talk 16:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Levee design

I notice the section on the 17th St levee has picked up (without citation) a statement that: 'These claims however, dont bear out as the 17th street levees were concrete walls and not earthen works that would require such shoring up.'

What s the authority for that proposition? The engineering idea that a concrete wall would not require shoring is ridiculous. Mst New Orleans levees were eathen berms topped (in some cases) by concrete walls. It is just possile that someone looking atan mage of the 17th St levee only saw the wall. Alan 09:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The 17th street levy was the one that broke. It was actually a canal, the wake of the barges causes erosion, the salt water kills the vegetation that would keep the bank intact. Concrete walls still require a foundation. so the edit is without foundation either --Gorgonzilla 15:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

discrimination by Mayor Nagin

I can't find a reference, but during my viewing, I heard a report that Mayor Nagin, had ordered the evacuation of tourists in a hotel near is headquarters, these tourists were taken to the superdome and per the Mayor's orders went to the front of the line for buses and preferentially evacuated ahead of the people who had been waiting. This caused protest and accusations of discrimination by those at the superdome. Obviously the Mayor was thinking of the reputation of New Orleans tourist economy, but this story may be appropriate for the discrimination section if anyone can find a citable source.--Silverback 12:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

A family returning to Scotland has described on the BBC TV news 6 August 2005 how after they were rescued from a New Orleans apartment roof hotels refused to let them stay, and when buses turned up at the Hilton for guests there were more spaces than paying guests, so six buses went back empty after refusing to take the family. As tourists they obviously came up against discrimination against those without ready cash. As a European I consider it outrageous that resources were not pooled to save everyone in this emergency: "small government" seems to have produced a bureacracy that outdoes Kafka....dave souza 21:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not enough on Local and State failures

Did I raise a red flag to those who lean against Bush? It's true that the vast majority of this article focuses on how FEMA (Bush) and the rest of the federal government (Bush) allegedly failed. It does not place enough attention on those who have primary responsibility for local emergencies. Why? I am tired of having my edits erased. I just feel that the blame should be spread more broadly, more FAIRLY.

Given that the administration appears to be gearing up to lay all blame at state and city level (look at the flooded school buses!) the article heading should report Republican attempts to lay blame as well as opposition politicians....dave souza 22:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Critics and polls blame feds and state/local govt evenly. This article WILL do the same, else this article is POV. If the state/local critique is littered with silly "republicans say" this and that, then the critique of FEMA and Bush will have similar "democrats say" this and that. Otherwise the article is clearly POV.214.13.4.151 12:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not confuse what you wish were happening with what is actually happening. Polls show that the American people hold the federal government significantly more responsible than state and local governments. --PHenry 13:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The website you like proves my point! 214.13.4.151 14:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Poll 1

  • federal government officials - preparation: good job = 22%, poor job = 69%
  • state and local government officials - preparation: good job = 20%, poor job = 70%
  • federal government officials - response: adequate = 20%, Could Have Done Much Better = 77%
  • state and local government officials - response: adequate = 24%, Could Have Done Much Better = 70%

Poll 2

  • Bush handling of Katirna: Approve = 38%, Disapprove = 52%
  • state and local governments: Approve = 41%, Disapprovve = 51% .


Gallup poll

  • Who to Blame
    • 38% said "no one is to blame for the problems in New Orleans after the hurricane"
    • 25% said "state and local officials" are "most responsible for the problems in New Orleans after the hurricane"
    • 18% said "federal agencies" are "most responsible"
    • 13% said President Bush is "most responsible"
    • 6% had no opinion


  • Whether offcials should be fired
    • 29% said that "top officials in the federal agencies responsible for handling emergencies should be fired"
    • 63% said they should not be fired
    • 8% had no opinion


  • Great job
    • 10% said President Bush has done a "great" job in "responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding"
    • 7% said state and local officials in Louisiana have done a "great" job
    • 8% said federal government agencies responsible for handling emergencies have done a "great" job
  • Good job
    • 25% said President Bush has done a "good" job in "responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding"
    • 30% said state and local officials in Louisiana have done a "good" job
    • 27% said federal government agencies responsible for handling emergencies have done a "good" job
  • Neither good nor bad job
    • 21% said President Bush has done a "neither good nor bad" job in "responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding"
    • 23% said state and local officials in Louisiana have done a "neither good nor bad" job
    • 20% said federal government agencies responsible for handling emergencies have done a "neither good nor bad" job
  • Bad job
    • 18% said President Bush has done a "bad" job in "responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding"
    • 20% said state and local officials in Louisiana have done a "bad" job
    • 20% said federal government agencies responsible for handling emergencies have done a "bad" job
  • Terrible job
    • 24% said President Bush has done a "terrible" job in "responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding"
    • 15% said state and local officials in Louisiana have done a "terrible" job
    • 22% said federal government agencies responsible for handling emergencies have done a "terrible" job


Are you using polling data to make the decision who actually did wrong in this case? thats horrible, what kind of logical are you holding?--C.levin 17:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You miss the point! The issue is whether the article should include coverge of state and local ineptitude in the same way the article includes harsh criticism of Bush and the federal actions. Public opinion simply backs up that reality that the public has criticized all levels of government similarly - thus there is no basis to short change the discussion of state and local bungling. Logic would point to people not building homes in a city where EVERYONE knew that a flood would one day destroy - so the logical conclusion is that locals got what everyone warned them of. Every dollar spent on levees (to protect an area that should not be inhabited due to the likelihood of severe flooding) was a dollar poorly spent. While suffering people have my compassion and support, the fact remains that everyone chose to line in area that was always perilous due to storms, and that the federal government's role is NOT to spend tax money on costs that are avodiable (such as levees in flood plains). In any event, the polls are posted simply to prove that the general consensus is that all levels of govt had flawed performance. In the end, it will become quite clear to rational people that the local officials certainly should have been the experts and demonstrated leadership - but they did not. People can expect the gov and mayor of new orleans and louisiana to some level of knowledge and expertise in dealing with the largest city's biggest problem. Local problems should be solved at the local level. By the accepted doctrine, FEMA assistance is a backup plan that kicks in 3 or 4 days later. And more federal money has gone to levees in that area under 5 years of Bush than during 8 years of Clinton. 214.13.4.151 12:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


What Blanco did and when, from the official press releases:

  • August 26: GOVERNOR BLANCO DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY [5]
  • August 27: Governor Blanco asks President to Declare an Emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina [6]
  • August 28: Governor Blanco's Announcement on Hurricane Evacuation [7]

So she did ask for help, and she did declare an emergency. Deirdre 20:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Gov Blanco did sheepishly admit, when pressed on camera by CNN's Miles O'Brien, that she did not ask the WHite House for federal troops until WEDNESDAY (31 August).214.13.4.151 12:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Troll/Vandal header your way

Looks like the Able DangerRay Nagin troll has caught up with you here. He has gone by the names Honest Abe and Long John Silver in the past. His MO is to make massively POV edits to the whole article then repeatedly revert when anyone calls him on them, claiming that his is the 'correct' version. He also has a history of making personal attacks against people who do not like this behavior, calling them liars and occasionally 'National Socialists' (i.e. NAZIs). He seems to float arround the 209.x.x.x block. He has repeatedly violated the 3RR, 10RR and 20RR. At this point I think revert on sight is justified. Look at the history of the Nagin story for details. He also appears to have a number of sockpuppets.--Gorgonzilla 05:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

  • At this point he has reverted to his parallel version of the same article at leat 50 times. This version used to include a crackpot Posse Comitatus theory until I posted the wikipedia article on it when he found some other theory on powerline or whatever. He seems to think that changing his IP address allows him to revert with impunity. Actually it appears to. his other tactic is to make pre-emptive attacks on all the other editors as being left wing extreemists, he called me a liar and a Nazi in the Able Danger article. Admin I reported to said stop bickering. I have not seen any evidence of the 3RR being enforced or the WP:NPA rule being enforced in that case. --Gorgonzilla 02:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The same vandal has been taking redirect articles and turning them into POV screeds. See the history of First responder for an example of a completely non current affairs article hijacked to turn it into a POV platform. --Gorgonzilla 05:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Refusal to accept Foreign Assistance: Canadian aid accepted

Is it worth mentioning in the "Refusal to accept Foreign Aid" section that Canadian Red Cross workers, emergency response teams and coast guard assistance has been accepted? Right now, the subsection makes it sound like no foreign assistance has been accepted at all. Jkelly 00:53, September 7, 2005 (UTC)jkelly

The section is (and has always been) titled "Reluctance to accept foreign assistance". The criticism would be that no (substantial) assistance was accepted when offered in the first couple of days, when aid was needed the most. --Tsaddik Dervish 03:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Webster's definition of "reluctance" --Tsaddik Dervish 03:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Bush's proposal of federal taking over

Its very important to read the article on washingtonpost carefully,[8], the "rejection of federakl taking over" is following the "The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night," the simple statement like "the federal taking over of evacuation of new orleans was rejected" is very easily mileading reader to think feds only want to take over evacuation but not other action of national guards.--C.levin 13:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Electoral districts, and Migration to other states

Note: I have restored the following materials, which were deleted by 69.105.138.214 with the explanation that they were "wild projections."

Electoral districts
New Orleans will undoubtedly remain depopulated for some time, at least many weeks. It is likely that many existing residents will never return there, setting down roots in other cities, possibly where they have been evacuated. This raises some questions about who will be eligible to vote in the next two November elections. While the Louisiana legislature will doubtless make provisions for the continuation of the New Orleans political structure and allow for absentee ballots, the question remains as to how these suddenly depopulated legislative districts will be dealt with.
Migration to other states
The large, likely permanent migration of many New Orleans residents to other states will affect the demographics of the recipient states. Prior to the hurricane, Louisiana was one of a handful of states projected to become a majority-minority state. Because a majority of displaced Louisiana residents are black, this occurance will likely be delayed in Louisiana, accelerated in nearby Florida and Georgia, and increased in Texas, which itself became a majority-minority state in mid-2005.

I think these are wholly legitimate points of discussion in this article, as many evacuees have been quoted as saying that they were not going to return. I believe that they should remain in the article, absent a well-reasoned objection from other editors. -- BD2412 talk 17:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

no they aren't. they are sensational unsourced speculative bs. Biloxi rebuilt, Galveston rebuilt, LA , SF, and San Diego rebuilt after disasters. New Orleans will too especially given $100B. I personally am betting the influx of money will cause a population boom, but I don't know anything about the future. Neither do you. Don't include crazy claims as factual. 69.105.138.214 17:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, and I am willing to compromise to insure that the article most accurately represents the political effects of Hurricane Katrina. I have written a substitute section, based entirely on sourced facts:

Population displacement
In the days following the evacuation of New Orleans, Reuters reported that "[i]nterviews with refugees in Houston, which is expecting many thousands of evacuees to remain, suggest that thousands of blacks who lost everything and had no insurance will end up living in Texas or other U.S. states,"[9] and Forbes Magazine notes that "those left homeless will take part in the biggest internal migration of people since the days of the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression."[10] This and other reports ([11][12]) suggest that the hurricane will have demographic consequences, particularly in and around Louisiana. Prior to the hurricane, Louisiana was one of a handful of states projected by the U.S. Census department to become a majority-minority state within the next two decades. Because a majority of displaced Louisiana residents are black, this occurance will likely be delayed in Louisiana, accelerated in nearby Florida and Georgia, and increased in Texas, which itself became a majority-minority state in mid-2005.

Food for thought: an article on the impact on future La. elections. Not all points are valid, but it gets you to think about the forces in play here. NoSeptember 18:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

One important aspect to keep in mind however, is that the New Orleans metro area is around 1.4 million people. New Orleans the city (same area as Orleans Parish) as about 500k people and is the jurisdiction of Ray Nagin. Jefferson Parish, the (probably mostly suburban) area just west of Orleans Parish is of comparable population to Orleans Parish, also mostly under sea-level, is also mostly under water today, and was also evacuated. On the other hand it is majority white. Overall in fact, the metro area is majority white, and roughly mirrors the demographics of the state, not to mention many other cities' urban/suburban demographic breakdowns. While I wouldn't dispute that the black urban areas have in all likelihood been hit disproportionally harder than the white suburban areas for a wide variety of possibly reasons, they were both hit hard. And I would be very careful with throwing around statistics that only apply to Orleans Parish or projecting them to all evacuees. 69.105.138.214 03:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  • The distinction is not so much between Black and White as between rich and poor (although the poor are disproportionately Black). The rich can afford to rebuild in N.O.; the poor have been (or are being) shipped to other states, and will likely have to settle wherever they end up because they can't afford to move elsewhere. -- BD2412 talk

Call 1-800-621-FEMA. Apply for reimbursement. Collect your check. That includes lost wages and bus tickets home. They will also provide money for rent. Private insurance companies can't handle major disasters anyway. 69.105.138.214 23:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina

For your info, that's an article George W. Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina devoted specifically to POTUS's response to Katrina. It's on "response" not "Political effects", so it is quite different from this article . Please contribute there if interested. Gebuhuka 07:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Outsourcing/Privatized?

Is there any credence to FEMA privatizing emergency management to IEM? I read about this here, and I wasn't sure what Katrina/New Orleans-related talk page to mention it on. tomt 8 September, 2005

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_the_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina/Archive_1&oldid=1149988904"