National Guardsman and "environmentalist" editorializes over NOLA

[lebkuchen]

No, he wasn't in NOLA, and yes, he's being used as an apologist for the US Govt. He also monopolized the entire Stripes letters section today. The Bushies must be desperate to trot this idiot out.

************************************************

I don’t think anybody can look at the response from any level of our government and say it was adequate or sufficient to address the disaster wrought by Hurricane Katrina. Even more disconcerting is that this lack of a coordinated, efficient and effective response comes four years after the Sept. 11 attacks and the supposed revamping of our national emergency response agencies and their multibillion-dollar budgets.

To paraphrase a primary law of physics: The natural state of government is a large and cumbersome bureaucracy.

While it’s obvious that our government is still ill-prepared to handle a large-scale emergency on our own soil, in the case of natural disasters, exactly what is the government’s role in protecting the growing population living in dangerous areas? How far are we willing to go to ensure this “never happens again”? And what responsibility do we as individuals share for our own safety?

Natural disasters have been wreaking havoc since the dawn of time with little regard for our actions or efforts. In the past however, groups of people seemed to have had the collective good sense not to inhabit obviously dangerous areas.

An exponential growth in the world’s population has naturally driven people to spread out into increasingly hazardous areas. While pervasive poverty has forced some people to settle in undesirable regions, advances in technology, improvements in quality of life and increased wealth have resulted in a large majority of us choosing to live in equally unwise locales.

So how far do we go to protect people? Do we completely forbid development in disaster-prone areas? Do we control the country’s population through immigration or reproductive limitations? Do we physically force people to evacuate against their will? Do we require that all structures in the country meet some arbitrary and cost-prohibitive disaster-proof building code?

At some point we must accept that there is not always a technical solution. More importantly, there is not always a government solution. We, as individuals, are largely responsible for our own actions and decisions to live and stay in harm’s way. Ultimately, we must concede that life is full of danger and that nature can not always be controlled.

Case in point: New Orleans is a city that should not exist where it is located. Looking at the images of the city, post-Katrina, it is obvious what this region would look like if it were not for the hundreds of millions of tax dollars and the continuous efforts of the Army Corps of Engineers.

To think that it is safe for more than half a million people to live 10 feet below sea level and surrounded by three major bodies of water is delusional. To think these bodies of water can be contained and channeled continuously is arrogant. And to think that tax dollars should be used to rebuild New Orleans where it currently sits is irresponsible.

Yet many people are casting blame at the federal government for a predictable and foreseeable act of nature and its consequences. And the feds are reacting as predictably as another primary law of physics: For every unfavorable public opinion poll there is an equal and proportional increase in tax dollars spent.

In the case of a natural disaster, specifically a hurricane, what is the appropriate response for the federal government? How much involvement should the states expect before the disaster strikes? Does the constitutional mandate of “provide for the common defense” include combating nature?

Are the people wishing to cast blame at the feds the same ones who selectively cry “states’ rights!” during other instances of federal bureaucratic creep? If the local leaders knew the levees were only designed to withstand a Category 3 hurricane and the majority of the population was poor and without transportation, where was their plan for evacuating the city and saving lives? Why did that city and state seem to be more concerned with promoting cultural and tourist attractions and subsidizing sports franchises than planning and preparing for this worst-case scenario?

The mere act of requesting for years federal tax money to maintain those levees does not absolve the state and local officials of responsibility for the lives lost and damage done. Expecting those levees to protect that city is tantamount to placing a Band-Aid on a sucking chest wound. However, as usual, too many people expect the federal government to subsidize stupidity. Too many people turn to government to relieve them of any personal responsibility.

As the enormity of this disaster reveals itself, a lot of fingers are pointing and hands are wringing. However, given the precariousness of this city’s existence in relation to its environment, a lot of people in Louisiana, private citizens as well as public figures, had their heads buried in the mud long before Katrina blew through.

Capt. Shawn Keller

Capt. Shawn Keller, a South Carolina Army National Guardsman and onetime environmental geologist, is serving with the 1st Battalion, 178th Field Artillery unit. His unit recently moved from Camp Navistar, Kuwait, to Camp Victory, Kuwait.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=31513

[PaulaFarrell]

1. He doesn't seem to undertand that New Orleans has to be where it is

It is the outflow of the biggest river in the US and the port MUST be there. It is economically vital to US trade. People have to work in the port. So there has to be a city. You cannot just wipe NO off the map.

[lebkuchen]

2. He doesn't mention the nuclear reactors built on faultlines

in California, one of the top three disasters predicted to take place in the U.S.--earthquakes! There are also nuclear reactors that have been built in the midst of populated areas, such as in New Hampshire. The people were there first. And what about the Super Fund sites, where corporations came in and polluted groundwater in poor neighborhoods?

That's just for starters.

[ForrestGump]

3. They just DID wipe it off the map

He's right about it being a place that shouldn't be where it is, and about how we cannot presume to forever contain Mother Nature -- for example, had the Mississippi got it into its mind to move over a bit, New Orleans would have been drowned because the Army Corps (who've committed some truly heinous environmental atrocities and consistently remained arrogant enough to think they were getting away with them) is not any match for ole Mama. Of course, low-lying areas of New Orleans were not always below sea level...that's the direct result of (the usual story) anthropogenic activty: draining swamps, basically.

The rest of his missive is drivel, obvious in its political bias, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: New Orleans was not infinitely sustainable as it existed. That's not to say that its demise was unremarkable or inevitable at this point and from this cause (reference the potentially tinfoilish stories of possible deliberate flooding and, at the very least, documented failure to maintain and upgrade the containment system) or that there will ever be any valid excuse for the disgusting and intentional delay in rescuing people. Most of those people -- I guarantee it -- did not die because of the fact of the flood (and certainly not of the wind) and its initial onslaught but because they were left to die by the subhuman scum who've hijacked the American state.

[lebkuchen]

4. Would you mind....

sending your excellent response here?

[e-mail]