Dr. J.,
I've been feeling really bad about my N.O. post ever since you commented on it. I tried to say that I did feel sympathy for individuals affected by the storm, but now that I re-read it, it's kind of the same thing as saying "I'm against the war, but support the troops."
If I'm not sympathetic to the lawsuit, then how can I claim to care about the people?
Having said that though, I do want to clarify my position because I still think the blame is being disproportionately placed on the Army Corps. of Engineers.
Were the levees in terrible disrepair? Yes. Were they federal levees? Yes. Was FEMA hopelessly inept? Yes, all true! I think what galls me though is the way the Governor and Mayor have continued to perpetuate the myth that these were the *only* problems facing the city when Katrina hit, that they didn't play a huge role in the tragic loss of life that followed.
Given the condition of the levees, there was no way to avoid the loss to property, no way no how, but the loss of life? I'm sorry, I lay at least half the blame on the local politicians.
Also, while the levees are federal, they are located in Lousiana, which means that funds appropriated for renovating them goes through local filters as well. You are right, I grossly overstated the amount of money squandered--it wasn't in the billions, but it was in the tens of millions. To my way of thinking, this needs to be taken into account by the jury hearing the lawsuit as well. Why was the work to rebuild the levees stalled? Who stalled it? Where did the money go???
But the bottom line is, saying that the MS coast was destroyed by a natural disaster and N.O. was destroyed by flooding doesn't prove that the blame is 100% the fault of the Army or Federal gov't. There are plenty of engineers who have said that the levees--had they been renovated to the standards set forth by the "experts"--still may have given way to the tremendous force of the storm, there just isn't any way to prove otherwise.
I was reacting emotionally to Ray Nagin's arrogant assertions that he was piling it on to see what he could get. This is a man who has shown zero remorse for his role in this tragedy, a man who was reelected with so many of the storm's victims not even present to vote for or against him, a man who has everything to gain by making it seem that the buck stops somewhere else when it comes to what went wrong.
Yes, there is plenty of blame to be laid at the feet of the Federal authorities, but the fault is not uniquely theirs, and this lawsuit and Nagin's entire attitude are clearly trying to suggest otherwise.
As for judging New Orleans, I'm sorry, but I do a little. What kind of place KNOWINGLY allows its poorest citizens to live in such danger for so many years? What kind of place tolerates the level of corruption and crime we saw *before* Katrina (never mind afterwards)? I can't help it if I feel that the city is a cesspool to a large degree. Does that mean there aren't wonderful hard-working honest people who live there? Of course not! No more than calling Las Vegas "Sin City" is an indictment on every man woman and child who lives there. But having grown up in New York City, a place hard-hit several times by blackouts, blizzards, terrorist attacks, crime waves, I can say that for all her troubles, New York is a city that picks itself up and stands on its own two feet. Sure, they asked people to come and visit, spend money, etc...after 9/11, but local authorities--for the most part--really took care of business, and people took care of each other in a way I just didn't see in New Orleans in the wake of this terrible storm.
Places do have their own "character," for lack of a better word, and if you want to be offended by the fact that I'm unimpressed with the overall "character" of New Orleans, that's your right. But please don't see it as a sign of my "hatred" for you or anyone else who lives there. It's my opinion about the totality of the place, not all the people who live there.
Posted by insomnomaniac at March 14, 2007 10:54 AM | TrackBack