Not making light of either situation for both of them are indeed tragedies, but what explains the difference in the response of each state? (Of course I know New Orleans is not a state)
Katrina could be seen brewing for weeks before it struck.
2007-10-23 06:24:57 · 24 answers · asked by Kubla Con 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Samantha's answer is BS. The federal government was warning the Governor of LA and the Mayor of N. O. three days prior to landfall that they needed to declare a state of emergency and request federal assistance. By law the federal government can not do anything until that happens. It's one of the State's rights. Both the Governor and the Mayor said they had evacuation plans and recovery procedures that would adequately take care of the problem.
When it became obvious that they in fact DIDN'T they started to blame the Feds.
Anyone who thinks the Feds had anything to do with that debacle is full of BS and lacks any understanding of laws reguarding Federal assitance to the States.
What the government DID do was wrong though. After they were being blamed for the Governor's/Mayor's mistakes, they did what any good Democrat would do and through money at the problem. Look what that created.... so many fraud cases it's sickening...
And then people turn around and reelect the man who is mostly responsible for so many needless deaths. Shows you were their priorities are and were.
2007-10-23 06:55:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋
Kind of odd considering this wildfire is moving way faster than Katrina did.
I mean you can't even compare how fast a wild fire spreads (minutes when driven by wind)to a hurricane which you have days sometimes up to a week to prepare for.
New Orleans and the disaster created by Katrina were a direct result of a failure of the people to leave when told to and the government failing to plan accordingly. New Orleans sits below sea level what kind of moron really believed that they would with stand a storm surge.
Thankfully California and the affected regions take this threat seriously enough to get their people out.
2007-10-23 06:34:02 · answer #2 · answered by tnfarmgirl 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
First reason:
In my humble opinion I feel that they wanted a diversion from the war and Katrina's timing could not have been more perfect.
At the time Katrina hit, the Bush administration was under heavy International fire to find the WMD that they used as a platform to sell going to war with Iraq to the world. It was also coming to light that there was never WMD in Iraq and the world was slowing beginning to learn the facts of this.
Second reason:
The Louisiana coastline is oil rich. Damage to those systems would only drive the price of oil up and provide a means to divert government funds to that industry. It is a well known fact that the majority of the Bush administration had a large intrest in energy shares before taking public office. A little known fact however is that there is a way to divert those shares yet still keep them while in office. I believe if they was investigated closely by those that truely understand how to swiflly move trust and holdings by fast action transfers this would be discovered. Billions have been made and billions have simply vanished under this administration. It also served to fuel more reason to secure Iraqi oil.
Third:
New Orleans was a majority of poor black americans. It was plagued with crime and rated the most dangerous city in the U.S. Many lived pay check to pay check and did not have reliable transportation or the extra funds to pay for the high cost of fuel. muchless pay for an over night stay at a motel.
In truth, the governments actions said what was not spoken. Which was,that they did not care for the poor or black americans of this country.
Forth:
The Army corp of engineers have a very large facility right there in the city. They already knew that the levies would not hold if a catagory storm of Katrina's stature was to hit (one of those million dollar studies had already proved this and was knowledge in hand at the time of the storm).
They knew years in advance yet never diverted the needed funds to fortify the levey system "properly". Properly being the key word here.
They did recieve funds many times yet chose inifficent and cheaper means though they had the cash on hand to do more. What was done with the rest of the money is a mystery.
Fifth: Government bureaucracy was all over the events of Katrina. There was an unseen hand that even stalled help coming to the people of New Orleans. Many trucks carrying water and food to the people was made to turn away and go back from where they came from.
In my humble opinion Katrina was used as an excuse to commit one of the most evil acts of our time for the sake of diversion and profit.
California however has a very powerful political voice and wealth compared to most states.
Money and power are catered to.
2007-10-23 08:05:47 · answer #3 · answered by tina w 2 · 2⤊ 6⤋
Difference being that nobody foresaw the breaking of the levees. Secondly, evacuations were ordered during Katrina, but a majority opted to stay. These fires in CA, are a totally different story. Fire doesn't move in a path, it moves with the wind. CA had hurricane force winds pushing these fires. The prediction of hurricanes and direction is much better than the attempt to predict a fire and the directions it will take.
2007-10-23 06:32:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
Those that had the means to evacuate did. Those who did not have the means did not. A mandatory evac. was not declared until too late. There are certain legal ramifications involved with declaring a mandatory evac.
It sounds easy to load up the buses and head them out but there again more legal ramifications. If in fact this was done, there were plenty of opportunists waiting in the wings to take advantage of an unsecured bus full of people and their belongings.
By the time impact is imminent, its too late. Storms change their course constantly. It would take 2 days to move everybody and the financial impact would be huge.
ME? I GOT THE HELL OUT!
2007-10-23 06:36:18 · answer #5 · answered by DOIN' RIGHT AINT GOT NO END 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
People in N.O. were reluctant to evacuate because hardly anyone believes they're going to drown unless they're in the middle of an ocean in a sinking boat. Fire is different, it puts a different kind of fear in your bones, you see fire barreling your way and you're going to move in the opposite direction. Don't try to turn this into something political, there are too many other issues that we can try to do something about.
2007-10-23 06:59:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
California has a plan
New Orleans plan was to blame Bush
BTW: New OrLeans had days to get out of town.
2007-10-23 06:37:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
Californians own cars and have money for gas. And when the government says got out of town they do. New Orleanians that got trapped didn't have money or cars. And when told to leave they just went as far as high ground because Democrats (mayor and governor both) weren't prepared to do anything.
2007-10-23 06:34:44 · answer #8 · answered by namsaev 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
The people in that part of Southern California, in general, have a lot more money than the poor people of New Orleans. Many of the poor in New Orleans had no cars, no money and no place to go.
2007-10-23 06:33:44 · answer #9 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 4⤊ 6⤋
You said it well and spoke for a lot of people who are asking the same question!!
2007-10-23 17:53:40 · answer #10 · answered by Brianne 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋