Funmurphys: the Blog

Katrina Ramblings 2

Complaints about FEMA are nothing new. I remember in the 1993 floods people were bitching about how slow, ackward, and bureaucratic the organization was. I don't recall anyone claiming that the percieved poor response showed that President Clinton didn't like poor white people, which was the group mostly affected by the flooding around here. There were complaints following every major disaster I can think of, and the larger the disaster, the more the complaints. And why not, FEMA the organization consists of bureaucrats at the top and then an ad hoc conglomeration of disparate parts put together for a particular mission. Of course it's going to take time to get it's act together, and the more resources it has to meld, the longer it takes. And we have come to believe that somehow because it ultimately has the full resources of the country at its disposal, it can do anything. Yes, but as Scotty would say if he were alive today, FEMA can't change the laws of physics.

And yes, they are a part of the government, which means that they have to do all the stupid things we, the people, make government do. Like make sure everybody's sexual harrassment training is up to date. Don't you have to have some sort of sexual harrassment training at your place of employment? Hey, if we can dispense with it in an emergency, why do we need it all? Are you saying sexual harrassment is OK?

Micky Kaus is going on about the problems of Federalism, and sums up with: "When things screw up, these days, we hold the president and the federal government responsible. It follows that the president and the federal government should have the power to stop things from screwing up. ... " Hey Mickey, maybe we shouldn't hold the president and federal government responsible (I know I don't - so there's one vote no). Should we forget about the separation of powers (which isn't just between executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government BTW) in extreme situations? Would it be better in an emergency if we just had one man on a white horse who could simply order whatever needed to be done? How many tyrants have seized power under just such a pretext? Who decides how when it is just such an emergency? Such a move ignores the centuries of hardwon experience on why such a separation is ultimately a better way. Nor is it clear that a single edict issuer is better. If it's better in an emergency, why isn't it better all the time? You have to understand there are tradeoffs, and one system may be better one thing than another, but you have to pick what's best overall. And that doesn't even address the fact that every management study shows you're better off pushing authority down, not concentrating it upward.

It reminds me of my aerodynamic days, and people would ask me to optimize the performance. I'd ask them back, "When you say performance, are you talking range or maneuverability?" Invariably I'd get the reply, "Both". Then I'd have to get midieval on their heinies, because at that point it was obvious they didn't have a clue about optimization.

I wonder if there would be so many complaints about FEMA if (1) Bush Derangement Syndrome didn't infect so many media types (CNN needs to find a cure stat) and (2) the dunderheads in Louisiana concentrated two enourmous crowds of helpless people - one at the Superdome and one at the convention center. And then they wouldn't let relief in, nor would they let the people out - and then they had to scrounge transportation since they let hurricane destroy all the local buses. How much more poignant could they have made the story?

Now is all this a defense of FEMA? No, not really. I suppose it's a defense of FEMA for what it is, not what it should be. First, because after the two big screwups at the local level - no evacuation except self evacuation, and turning away the Red Cross and the Salvation Army from entering New Orleans, all you're left with on FEMA is that it does what a Federal Agency does best - spend a hell of a lot of money to slowly do something while making damn sure it compleis with every law and every proceedure that has been set upon it in advance (otherwise known as "red tape"). And they aren't first responders, they were an organization that plugs in resources to local leadership. Since the local leadership doesn't have a clue as to what to do, FEMA couldn't provide adequate resources. And that's why you saw the announcement over the weekend that FEMA was now an equal partner, and the LANG would be closely coordinating with Gen Honore. So what happens when local leadership sucks (like this instance?) Well, the people who picked that leadership suffers. Isn't that part of the accountablity politicians have to voters, and ultimately voters have to each other?