English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I have a hard time believing the obvious and just want to explore this further and hear some opinions.

2007-10-25 08:55:58 · 15 answers · asked by DESPERATELY SEEKING SANITY!!! 4 in News & Events Media & Journalism

15 answers

Another reason may be that there were huge lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and the huge wildfires that occurred in San Diego back in 2003 and perhaps has influence from added paranoia of 9/11. After both disasters San Diego organized in preparation for disasters (earthquakes, fires, terrorist attacks) setting up reverse 911 call systems, funneling more funds towards disaster preparation and suppression. I worked in social services and witnessed funds targeting low-income neighborhoods move towards disaster prep. The fires here are devastating but things are running a little more smoothly than back in 2003.

I'm not going to argue with with money idea. Those with money do have power and there are a lot of rich folk that live in the outskirts of San Diego where most of the fires are wreaking havoc.

2007-10-25 09:12:31 · answer #1 · answered by Masqurin 2 · 1 1

I am an American Red Cross volunteer for 15 years. Each disaster is different, we learned so much from past mistakes. Never in the history of our organization or the US government, has there been so much devastation as there was in Katrina. One of the big differences, is accessibility to the devastated parts comparing Katrina with the fires. Another huge difference is with flooding, you are dealing with a different problem altogether than with a fire. The roads are not like Katrina, where no one road was accessible, there is no contamination of water and people still have food available at shelters. Your hotel and motels are OPEN in other areas. It is not a 3 state event. Even though a lot of people are affected, not as many as Katrina. Aid was able to get there quickly to the CA fires, whereas, it was impossible to get there after the Katrina event. The Governor of CA called immediately for help, whereas, Louisiana did not. In order to get help, your governor has to ask for it. That brings out the "big guns" to aid the population. CA has had much experience with wildfires, whereas there had never been an event as great as Katrina. We have to compare apples to apples not apples to oranges/

2007-10-25 11:44:33 · answer #2 · answered by slk29406 6 · 0 0

Economics:

San Diego = rich white people
New Orleans = poor African-Americans

Politics (and I'll throw the Greensburg, KS tornado in here as well, since Bush's response to that was similar to New Orleans):

California's governor: Arnold Schwarzenegger (Republican)
Louisiana's governor: Kathleen Blanco (Democrat)
Kansas' governor: Kathleen Sebelius (Democrat)

2007-10-28 16:26:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I am proud of the San Diegans....When they were told to evacuate...they did!! They did not even have a 10 day in advance warning like Katrina victims......Now, instead of shooting and looting the San Diegans are waiting to find out if thier homes are there or not. They are making the best of a sad situation. Katrina was a different situation due to all of the water......but many of the people behaved very badly. Looting for food....ok I understand that.....but TV's, no!! Kudos to San Diego and the Gov.............

2007-10-25 10:36:40 · answer #4 · answered by CaliforniaGrl 5 · 1 0

I see several reasons...

1. I think it's because people in California are richer.
2. George Bush doesn't care about black people. - to quote Kanye
3. Also because FEMA is afraid of all the negative feedback they got from the New Orleans incident.
4. If there were sweat shops (or other cheap labor) in New Orleans, they would have gotten the swift aid that was provided to people in Indonesia after the Tsunami

2007-10-25 09:06:38 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 4 1

Maybe because San Diegans aren't shooting at the people trying to help them? Keep in mind, too, getting stuff to the the evacuation sites here is much easier than it was in New Orleans - most roads are opened. As far as federal aid, though, we had to beg for it just like the people in New Orleans did. I think the National Guard just arrived yesterday and the fires have been burning since Sunday.

2007-10-25 09:08:13 · answer #6 · answered by Shelley L 6 · 2 3

CA is the best prepared state when it comes to natural disasters in America. People and the Governator did not stand around whinning, they new what to do and did it. Instead of looting and such they came to their neighbors' aid.

Fema and the Gov. of New Orleans new for many years that levy could flood and has many times in the past.

2007-10-25 09:14:48 · answer #7 · answered by Seedna 4 · 0 1

Rich, white, Republicans. Lots o' country clubs and golf courses.

The rich must be protected. Many of them inherited their fortunes and aren't capable of fending for themselves or doing an honest day's work... they need all the government assistant they can get. Besides , who are the greatest financial contributors to our politicians??? The over-privledged, abundantly monied, San Diegans.

The poor have always had to think for themselves. This situation is no different.

2007-10-25 09:16:28 · answer #8 · answered by Kalifornia Citizen 2 · 2 1

simply put, the people in san diego have much more money than those in new orleans. those who have the gold make the rules, and get aid faster and more efficiently.

2007-10-25 09:04:52 · answer #9 · answered by somesoul2keep 3 · 2 0

GEE! I asked this yesterday. Now it's on the news. I guess my buddy didn't see my answer to the feeling compassion for other's question.

It's obvious: They were poor & black (in general) and these folks (Malibu) are rich & white (in general). No one has mentioned that there were also 3 dead blue whales that washed up on the beach in Malibu. That's a VERY unusual occurance.

2007-10-25 12:21:20 · answer #10 · answered by shermynewstart 7 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers