Interesting that the press is blaming the FEMA delays etc. . . on Mayor Bloomberg, of course during Katrina it wasn't Mayor Negin's fault but rather the President's.
Interesting Sandy - Katrina contrasts
- Thread starter Aardvark154
- Start date
Although Sandy was a bigger storm, 80% of New Orleans was under water virtually rendering any local efforts useless. I don't think criticism of Bloomberg is fair other than him even contemplating going ahead with the marathon.
If you're trying to compare Obama's response to a much larger geographical natural disaster to that of George Bush's fumbling of Katrina, then you're just fishing.
When you remember that New Orleans starts already below sea level, it's rapid inundation was no surprise.
What are you talking about?? Nagin had plenty of opportunity to evacuate many more people instead of sticking them in the Dome. Instead he did nothing and, along with the media, blamed Bush. Nagin had absolutely no clue how to handle a disaster.
If Bush had arrived sooner the media would have excoriated him for showing up for a photo op (like someone else we know).
With the election happening tomorrow does anyone really believe that Obama is concerned with what is happening in New York? One thing for certain is the media is definitely not going to point it out.
Apparently Christie thought that Obama's response was just fine and something tells me he and NY state governor have a better view of the situation than you.
What are you talking about?!? 95% of the cities population left under a mandatory evacuation. The first ever jackass.
Here's another interesting comparison..... There aren't 50,000 people still held up in a football stadium a week later, with no food or water, the dead piling up in the corridors, no police or authority on hand, nightly news reporting how unbelievable the living conditions are..... and the White House did nothing for about a week. No response team. No FEMA. Nothing.... And the press secretary actually said to Katie Couric, (and I paraphrase) "We didn't know how bad it was until yesterday"..... To which Katie replied, "how is that possible when we were broadcasting from New Orleans every day?"
The entire Bush Administration fucked up so Royally with Katrina.... Its a real shame that you use a natural disaster where a lot of ppl died needlessly to draw political lines.
There are a lot of differences.
First off, Louisiana is not far off from the third world, both in the corruption in its government, and in its poverty levels, and in its lack of general infrastructure. New York and New Jersey, on the other hand, are about as "first world" as it is possible to get. They have sound government, effective infrastructure, and a fairly well off population. NY/NJ simply have more resources that are more effective and better managed to bring to bear on ANY crisis.
Secondly, Sandy is not Katrina. A few power lines went down. A few basements were flooded. Some unlucky people were unfortunately killed. But Sandy has not destroyed an American city, NY/NJ are still there, just soggy, and in some parts without power. But it is not the same level of disaster.
I have heard some comment that Sandy was "just bad enough" to be a sort of perfect storm for Obama. A big enough crisis that a Presidential response was required. Not so big a crisis that it was going to turn into an outright disaster. So it gives him a chance to be Presidential without there being a REAL tragedy unfolding in the background behind the photo ops.
The people in NY/NJ will have a tough week and then it'll be history. Katrina, on the other hand, was still news a year later. That's not going to happen here. Sandy is now more in the news for its impact on the Presidential election, than for its impact on people's lives.
First off, Louisiana is not far off from the third world, both in the corruption in its government, and in its poverty levels, and in its lack of general infrastructure. New York and New Jersey, on the other hand, are about as "first world" as it is possible to get. They have sound government, effective infrastructure, and a fairly well off population. NY/NJ simply have more resources that are more effective and better managed to bring to bear on ANY crisis.
Secondly, Sandy is not Katrina. A few power lines went down. A few basements were flooded. Some unlucky people were unfortunately killed. But Sandy has not destroyed an American city, NY/NJ are still there, just soggy, and in some parts without power. But it is not the same level of disaster.
I have heard some comment that Sandy was "just bad enough" to be a sort of perfect storm for Obama. A big enough crisis that a Presidential response was required. Not so big a crisis that it was going to turn into an outright disaster. So it gives him a chance to be Presidential without there being a REAL tragedy unfolding in the background behind the photo ops.
The people in NY/NJ will have a tough week and then it'll be history. Katrina, on the other hand, was still news a year later. That's not going to happen here. Sandy is now more in the news for its impact on the Presidential election, than for its impact on people's lives.
Why is it that you cannot have a civil debate on here without name calling? You have a disrespectful attitude towards other members which needs to be checked, and I am just the guy to do it. Why don't I meet you at your place at Jane-Finch and we can discuss it further.
Something tells me that the people who live in Red Hook, Brooklyn have a far more profound grasp on what is going on than the Governor of New York, or you or me.
Perhaps because no public refuge center such as the Superdome was offered.
I invite you to talk with the over one million people who are still without power as the temperature falls below freezing, in many cases without food or gasoline, and with contaminated water as to how good things are.
BD has been on here for less than a week, made lot of friends along the path, cough, and is chiding others on something his tactful insight cough is the reason for abuse.
Sure, the Quebec Ice Storm was nasty too. But it was no Katrina, and neither is this.
Let me remind you: 1833 people died in Katrina. Sandy is NOTHING like that. Not even remotely close to it. Katrina not only left a huge number of people homeless, it also destroyed their jobs and livelihoods. Whole industries were wiped out. They had NOTHING. No home and no job. A huge number of people wound up migrating away from New Orleans to find work in the aftermath. I visited New Orleans FIVE YEARS after the disaster and entire swaths of the city STILL looked like a bombed out war zone.
Katrina absolutely devastated New Orleans. New York, New Jersey have not experienced anything even remotely on the same scale.
Aardvark why don't you give some evidence that FEMA's response to Sandy at all resembles Katrina. They were prepared this time, and maybe you could start with Governor Christie's opinion on the job they are doing.
They were? They had no prepositioned supplies in the Tri-state area at all, there are critical shortages of water, food, and fuel in New York City and parts of northern New Jersey. I don't know about MSNBC, but regular NBC is covering this.
I did a search and could not find a SINGLE story about anyone in New York or New Jersey not having safe water to drink. I saw stories about the tap water not being safe, but no stories about families being forced to drink unclean water due to lack of supply. I did see stories about water distribution centers being set up throughout the area--so I say you made it up.
General advice and expectations in an emergency is that you should cover the first 72 hours on your own. Everyone should have a three day supply of food and water minimum--and I believe announcements went out in advance of the storm telling people to prepare. So long as residents had access to fresh drinking water and food within three days of the event the government did its job.
High gas prices because local service station ran out is not exactly a humanitarian crisis, just an inconvenience. Emergency vehicles have adequate fuel. The government intervention is there to prevent deaths in the wake of disaster, not make sure you have a full tank of gas so that the family trip to the zoo you planned goes off without a hitch.
General advice and expectations in an emergency is that you should cover the first 72 hours on your own. Everyone should have a three day supply of food and water minimum--and I believe announcements went out in advance of the storm telling people to prepare. So long as residents had access to fresh drinking water and food within three days of the event the government did its job.
High gas prices because local service station ran out is not exactly a humanitarian crisis, just an inconvenience. Emergency vehicles have adequate fuel. The government intervention is there to prevent deaths in the wake of disaster, not make sure you have a full tank of gas so that the family trip to the zoo you planned goes off without a hitch.
Thats fine Fuji you go right ahead and say I'm making it up, who has the contacts you or me.
I suppose Fuji was also unable to find any television news reports either http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sMUliO79mg
Yeah I know the reporter is just making it all up with a bunch of actors -right? :frusty:
Yeah I know the reporter is just making it all up with a bunch of actors -right? :frusty:
I really don't know how you could compare FEMA's response to Sandy to what happened after Katrina. Their response then was abysmal. Rather then news networks I would rather go with the opinion of those who are actually in charge in their state. Governor Christie said that "cooperation has been great with FEMA here on the ground". Delaware's Governor John Markell said that people there had been "really, really impressed by the response of FEMA". Or do you assume they are both wrong?
