Would it be "racism" if it wasn't a Republican president?

[swansont]

For what it's worth' date=' some of my friends here in South Florida say that FEMA responded to Katrina MUCH faster than it responded to Andrew. I would hope so, since Andrew was *13 years* ago, but it's worth noting that Andrew has been listed several times over the last couple of weeks as a FEMA *success* story, which most here in South Florida consider to be an outrageous fabrication. (Mea culpa: I didn't live here at the time.)

 

The reason why I think that came up is because the FEMA director at the time was Clinton's man, who is generally being held up now as "the comparison" -- the guy who left it "working" so it ain't his fault that it's "broken". I believe he's been hired by the governor of Louisiana to aid the state effort in cleanup and restoration.

 

My point just being that spin is spin, and both sides get pretty outrageous about it sometimes. Have these people no shame? How long will it be before we see Michael Brown running for some office in a red state somewhere, blaming his plight on Senate Democrats and anybody-but-Bush reactionism, rather than his own resume-doctoring bad behavior?

 

Just as a side note, something like 180 homes were destroyed by Katrina in South Florida, and FEMA won't help them because they're below the 800-homes threshold. How's that for a kick in the pants?[/quote']

 

 

OTOH, I don't recall pictures of Florida underwater. Exactly what response is the comparison supposed to be? Plucking someone off a rooftop before the floodwaters rise higher, and the sheer number of displaced people, demands an immediate response. Disclosure: I didn't live in Florida for Andrew, either - I left before. So I also can't guage the response.

 

I agree that spin is spin, and it would be refreshing for people to take responsibility. Perhaps it's the cynic in me, but while there have been some statements to effect that "the response was inadequate. We must do better" I don't see anything in the current situation that makes me think it's anything other than the political handlers saying "There's no way to spin this enough. You have to take some blame."

 

As far as Florida being below the threshold, is it all that surprising? Small-scale should be handled by the states. How is that a kick in the pants?

[Pangloss]

Sure, I just meant it must be disappointing for those folks on an individual level. My general feeling is that we're way over the top in our expectations of federal government stepping in, and it's the worst body to expect efficient help from. We need to be less reactionary to what we see in the media and more intelligent in how we respond to disasters in particular. The biggest success stories in both Katrina and Andrew are, in many ways, the responses by private citizens and companies.

[john5746]

For what it's worth' date=' some of my friends here in South Florida say that FEMA responded to Katrina MUCH faster than it responded to Andrew. I would hope so, since Andrew was *13 years* ago, but it's worth noting that Andrew has been listed several times over the last couple of weeks as a FEMA *success* story, which most here in South Florida consider to be an outrageous fabrication. (Mea culpa: I didn't live here at the time.)

 

The reason why I think that came up is because the FEMA director at the time was Clinton's man, who is generally being held up now as "the comparison" -- the guy who left it "working" so it ain't his fault that it's "broken". I believe he's been hired by the governor of Louisiana to aid the state effort in cleanup and restoration.

 

My point just being that spin is spin, and both sides get pretty outrageous about it sometimes. Have these people no shame? How long will it be before we see Michael Brown running for some office in a red state somewhere, blaming his plight on Senate Democrats and anybody-but-Bush reactionism, rather than his own resume-doctoring bad behavior?

 

Just as a side note, something like 180 homes were destroyed by Katrina in South Florida, and FEMA won't help them because they're below the 800-homes threshold. How's that for a kick in the pants?[/quote']

 

Just for the record, Andrew occured under Bush I and the complaints were familiar. One difference: The Florida governor didn't formally ask for help until 3 days after and admitted it was a mistake.

 

According to the article below, you would think the Federal government would be ready for any major hurricane strike. I think this shows that each emergency has its own challenges and that nothing can be assumed. If communication is down assume the worst and act accordingly.

 

 

Charley/Andrew

[Pangloss]

Quite right, and as a result, I blew that political analysis completely. Thanks for the correction.