Talk:Criticism of the government response to Hurricane Katrina/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between September 9, 2005, and May 1, 2009.

shelter planning, availability of adequate shelter

I've been trying to figure out where the school buses were supposed to take the people from New Orleans. But the more relevant issues is what was the availability of shelter in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, the primary areas affected, and then the shelter availability in the surrounding area before the 2005 hurricane season.

I found a blog recently that quoted something about the 2004 FEMA New Orleans drill that said they identified a need for 1000 shelters while they only had 600 or so. I have not found any official report on that exercise, ah found it: http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=13051 I have found a spreadsheet on a LA State website that lists 450 open shelters as of Sep 18, down from 516 sites listed in June, reflecting sites never available or that have been closed. Few of the sites are government owned facilities. If 2000 buses were required to evacuate New Orleans before the storm, this would suggest the government would be unloading 4 buses at each of the church, Red Cross, Salvation Army shelter?

To my eye, the FEMA press release does not reflect much questioning of practical aspects of the actual operations. Perhaps it is hindsight (not many today question where the school buses were to go), but I find the following naive:

Sheltering

-- The interagency shelter group identified the need for about 1,000 shelters for a catastrophic disaster. The shelter team identified 784 shelters and has developed plans for locating the remaining shelters.

-- In a storm like Hurricane Pam, shelters will likely remain open for 100 days. The group identified the resources necessary to support 1000 shelters for 100 days. They planned for staff augmentation and how to include shelterees in shelter management.

-- State resources are adequate to operate shelters for the first 3-5 days. The group planned how federal and other resources will replenish supplies at shelters.

http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=13051

Apparently Mayor Nagin and the City had completed a public service advisory to be distributed in September to all residents on DVD that said basically that you were on your own. I speculate that this is a response to the inability to resolve the basic issue of a government evacuating a city and placing them in safe shelter, any government, not just New Orleans. Who pays? For having buildings of the right type. For keeping them supplied before need. For operation. For paying for cleanup and restocking after non-emergency use. A major reason given for not leaving is that the costs of going when not needed is too costly for the individuals and families - providing "free" shelter would do what?

I haven't even looked at the Mississippi shelter situation for Katrina. Does anyone know about the Florida handling of shelter as they are doing this exercise much more often. How do they handle the need for lots of shelter?

Sources so far: CNN Red Cross data/map http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/katrina/people/ http://katrina.louisiana.gov/shelters.htm http://www.doa.louisiana.gov/katrina/sheltersupdated0918.xls http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=13051

Mulp 19:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

quotations removed from main Katrina page (press censorship claims)

I just removed the following three paragraphs from the main page Hurricane_Katrina#Claims_of_restrictions_on_the_media because they're just editorial quotations. My impression is that they should be here if anywhere. Sbwoodside 03:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Columnist John Kass of the Chicago Tribune wrote about FEMA reported restrictions on September 8: "Politics is at the bottom of it, since [President Bush] has been blamed, either fairly or unfairly, for the weak federal response."

The Baltimore Sun editorialized that "[I]t smacks not of concern for the feelings of survivors or the sensibility of readers, but of a desire to cover up the bad news."

After Reuters released a story (Media groups say FEMA censors search for bodies) about the restrictions, but American news outlets ran only brief reports: The Washington Post put it on page C8 of its "Style" section, the L. A. Times devoted four sentences to FEMA's decision, and the New York Times ran three sentences on page A20.

Look under Criticisms of Dept. of Homeland Security > Criticisms of FEMA > Censorship in this article. There's some information here (and you might want to edit/add some as well of course). There's also a bit in the Hurricane Katrina article under Local effects and aftermath > Death toll (summary) section since it seems appropriate to mention there as well as it concerns body recovery. The paragraphs you mention don't sit well with me though. They imply argumentative POVs either directly or through selective inclusion (I'm just making those phrases up, but I hope you know what I mean. They're opinionated and suggestive). --Ben 08:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Public Response

I removed the poll, as it is a complete duplication of the one in Public Response. Leistung 17:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Cultural effects

I'm reluctant to propose yet another spin off article, but shouldn't we be talking about the cultural effects? NOLA had a unique urban culture and it's that loss which is driving the effort to rebuild it. Alan 18:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Culture is an aspect of society, so I'd say those should go in Social effects of Hurricane Katrina. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Michael Brown removed from his FEMA director position

As everyone probably knows now, Michael Brown was removed from his position as director of FEMA. I don't really know where and how to put that though. Should be added to the article anyway.

It seems that he was kicked out of his role in the relief effort, but retain his job as FEMA director and has the benefit of returning to D.C. [1]. A rather odd arrangement ... ? --Vsion 20:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

There have been a series of events impacting Mr Brown's tenure at FEMA, which belong in the Hurricane Katrina timeline.

• The prior employment that supposedly qualified him for the job at FEMA.
• When did he get the job, and who hired him for that job?
• When was FEMA moved from being Cabinet level position to being under DHS?
• Link to the specific allegations that came out, in Time magazine, about his lack of qualifications for the job.
• The date of the announcement that he no longer in charge of what? [2]
• The date of his resignation as FEMA director. A link to how that was phrased.

AlMac|^(talk) 20:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Unsure of categorization

The Category:Kanye West seems somewhat out of place at the top of the page. Yes, he did have something to say about the political impact of the hurricane and the response, but does it deserve a separate category? Just curious. User:FeanorStar7

Evacuation: progress and delays

• • See below for stranding substantiation - Acham.

I replaced "remained stranded" with "remained in the city", because stranded implies:

• left behind, and
• unable to leave

It's not clear (or may be a matter of dispute) how many of the people who did not evacuate before the hurrican made travel impossible, remained of their own free will. I would like this encyclopedia to report on the numbers of people who wanted to go (and told at least ONE other person of this wish) but who were unable to walk, pedal a bike, take a taxi/car/train/bus out of New Orleans.

Also, after the hurricane hit and the winds subsided, how bad were the roads and bridges? How many people were literally stuck? Unable to get out even on foot. Obviously, if there are flood waters more than 6 inches deep it will be hard, and it would be hazardous to wade in water over one foot deep, due to sewage leaks, etc.

I'd also like to distinguish between those who refuse evacuation and those who want to leave. Are you "stranded" if you refuse to get in a boat? Uncle Ed 19:24, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• I'd like to see you try and outrun a hurricane on foot through rural louisiana, no really, I'd love to see that, do you have a video camera?--172.128.245.193 19:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

One of the TV news channels interviewed a former mayor of New Orleans who stated that there was a poll taken after a prior hurricane.

50% of the residents stated that if there was a call to evacuate the city, they would try to do so, and that they had the personal ability to do so ... private auto, money for gasoline.

25% said that they were too poor for personal transportation, and that they were totally dependent upon public transportation.

25% said that they had rode out prior storms, could not believe it would ever get bad enough that they need to evacuate, would ride out any future storms.

We should try to find links to such evidence and include. We should also seek links to population statistics such as the year 2000 census (the USA has a national census every 10 years), which, according to news reports, indicated that approx 1/3 of the 1/2 million people in New Orleans parish ... they were without personal transportation, dependent on public transportation. AlMac|^(talk) 17:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • There are substantiated reports of people prevented from leaving New Orleans by the police in surrounding communities who did not want the citizens to enter their cities in escaping from N.O. One "bridge in question -- the Crescent City Connection -- is the major artery heading west out of New Orleans across the Mississippi River. " People reported police threatened to shoot them if they continued to cross out of the city. Even the conservative Washington Times reported it. Armd police from the town of Gretna "formed a line across the foot of the bridge. Before we were close enough to speak, they began firing their weapons over our heads." "Cops trap survivors in New Orleans," http://washtimes.com/upi/20050908-112433-4907r.htm

Acham 02:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)A

Gasoline Price Gouging vs. Looters

Zero tolerance for gas price gouging and looters. Looters are shot. Gas prices remain at high spiked values even as far west as California. Hmm.

Californian gas prices are not the result of price gauging, but of the free market process. Gas is scarce in the US market right now.

Please sign posts on talk page using the 4 tildes "AlMac|^(talk) 20:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)"

Don't forget the e-looters, the people with

• fraud sites to collect charitable donations that might otherwise go to people in need
• People who were never in the disaster area but come forward claiming to be evacuees in need of disaster releif.
• TV News is blasting some evacuees for using those $ 2,000.00 debit and credit cards (intended for essentials like food and clothing) for what many people consider to be frivolous purposes, although victims do need all sorts of things to calm them down and relax them.
• Raising of the ceiling of what contractors may spend without being subject to audits or inspections.

AlMac|^(talk) 20:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Far afield from "political effects"

Some material in this article (particularly everything in the "long-term consequences" section) does not readily fit under the heading of "Criticism of government response". I propose to move such material back to an article under the original title, "Political effects of Hurricane Katrina", and include a summary there referring to the criticisms documented in this article. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have carried out this proposal, leaving this article to address actual criticism of government response, and the resulting article to address other political effects (e.g. policy debates, changes in electoral constituencies, etc.). -- BD2412 ^talk 16:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Not a blog. Not an article on racism. Be nice.

This is not a blog. The talk page is about making the article better. The article is about a specific topic. It should refer to OTHER articles to the extent that other issues (like racism, poverty, etc.) are related to this article and its specific topic. Personal attacks are deletable on sight. WAS 4.250 14:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Landrieu's overflight

What is the evidence for the paragraph that begins 'However' and contradicts Landrieu's statement?

The broadcast portion of the video of her overflight. It is centered on the gap in the floodwall, although it is doubtful that the day before she had reached that point...at least not without walking through the busy work area at the bridge. Have any photos from the "photo op" so we know more about the equipment she refers to? (SEWilco 05:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC))

If we're dealing with an inference (and it's not an unreasonable inference) that needs to be stated. As it is, it reads like an authoritative quotation without any source. Alan 13:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Role of the MSM

I am not sure where a section on the media could be added. The MSM had failed big time in reporting events surrounding the disaster, by exaggerating hearsay. Politicians and supposedly other responsible parties were out of touch with reality, suggesting 10,000 dead, exaggerating looting and shooting, raping and people eating corpses, blowing up levees. Nagin out of control and helpless, Blanco threatening violence, the New Orleans police chief spreading rumors. Of course, these stories inhibited the relief and rescue effort. It was amazing the Federal Government got anything done in New Orleans after being bombarded with half-truths and downright lies screamed at them from the local authorities. In the meantime, some local police were indeed looting non-food items, if they were even present, a Senator was more concerned about diverting rescue efforts to retrieve items from his private estate, and the mayor wasting time on a radio station. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/national/nationalspecial/29crime.html?ei=5094&en=74a33a33d7d7f26e&hp=&ex=1127966400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

Whyerd 06:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter's Criticism

First time contributing to a wiki page, so forgive me if my contribution isnt flawless in execution. I've personally have been writing a couple of papers on the subject and was surprised to see Jimmy Carter's criticism undocumented. I will list some Internet source's I've used personally, although they are not of the best quality, they may at least be something worth reading for a few moments. Finding sources from the Internet after hearing them from forgotten sources can be frustrating at times, so please excuse the quality of some of them. Including the quality of the source I've used detailing the accounts I believe should be mentioned in this wiki. I would like to personally thank all contributors to wikipedia, which is quickly fulfilling its intended purpose in an eloquent manner.

Barret, Ted. “Brown puts Blame on Louisiana Officials.” CNN. 28 September 2005. 30 September 2005. <http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/27/katrina.brown/>.

Berger, Eric. “Keeping its Head Above Water.” Houston Chronicle. 1 December 2001. 21 September 2005. <http://www.hurricane.lsu.edu/_in_the_news/houston.htm>.

Fonda, Daren and Healy, Rita. “How Reliable Is Brown's Resume?” Time Magazine. 8 September 2005. 21 September 2005. <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1103003,00.html>.

Hsu, Spencer S and Glasser, Susan B. “FEMA Head is Focus of Criticism of Response to Gulf Coast crisis.” Star-Telegram. 7 September 2005. 7 September 2005 <http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/12579578.htm>.

Isikoff, Michael and Hosenball, Mark. “Wrong Priorities?” MSNBC. 7 September 2005. 21 September 2005. <http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9246373/site/newsweek/>.

Kelly, Jack. “The federal response to Katrina was not as portrayed.” Post-gazette. 11 September. 30 September. <http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05254/568876.stm>.

Mursch, Bryce. “Jimmy Carter criticizes FEMA’s role in Katrina relief.” WIS. 21 September 2005. 21 September 2005. <http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3878857&nav=0RaP>.

Myers, Lisa. “The FEMA ice follies.” MSNBC. 16 September 2005. 21 September 2005. <http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9369937/>.

News Release. “Hurricane Pam Exercise Concludes.” FEMA. 23 July 2004. 7 September 2005 <http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=13051>.

Olsen, Lize. “City had evacuation plan but strayed from strategy.” Houston Chronicle. 8 September 2005. September 21 2005. <http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3344347>.

Times-Picayune. “26,000 shelter at Superdome.” Times-Picayune. 28 August 2005. September 7 2005. <http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_08_28.html#074657>.

Racist Republicans

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051207/ap_on_go_co/katrina_congress

The above anonymous comment is a link to an article which does not state that any Republicans are racist, contrary to the anon's headline. (SEWilco 07:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

Race not a factor...

This site shows that race had little effect in the government's response. White people died at a higher rate than Black people. Any idea on how any of this can be woven into the article? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that only shows that the flood didn't discriminate. The racism charges have to do with the sluggish response to such things as the Dome and Convention Center mess. Whether valid or not, the charge is that if there had been 20,000 white faces at the dome, would the feds have dragged their feet the way they did? Mark K. Bilbo 02:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

time factor

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/politics/10katrina.html?ex=1297227600&en=01a0acbbed9d0a7e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

House Report

Can somebody help me out? Is there any mention, in any of the Katrina related articles, of the Congressional report called A Failure of Initiative: The Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina. (I was guessing that this one would be the mostly likely to have it). So, is it anywhere? (Certainly it ought to be). Thoughts? -- Sholom 18:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The report, and many other issues related to FEMA's response, are discussed at another wiki site, [www.FEMAanswers.org]. Please contribute to that wiki too! There are very few updates here in WP to keep current with the response. Castellanet 20:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Of Course It's Disputed

To some extent labelling this article as not nutral is redundant. It isn't very nutral, as it was created to point out the critisims of the government's response. For it to not be nutral, my best guess is it would also have to sing the praises of the response and possibly have "critisim of" removed from the title.

Bodies - the Maine response

Added a section on the efforts of the Maine Wardens group to aid in the recovery. Maybe this is not the place. But --- there is a picture, and I am not at all sure of the legality. It belongs there, but if it violates WIKI rules, someone else take it out - I will weep but will understand. --Dumarest 23:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Evacuation by car

I'm trying to make the section on "Criticisms of evacuation" neutral. Before I began, it mostly presented the point of view that:

• poor people could not get out, because they didn't have cars; and,
• this was mostly the fault of the federal government
• the state and local government shouldn't be blamed for this
• it's not the fault of the 1,100 people who stayed and died, that they died

I would like to modify this section so that the point of view expressed in the bullet points above is clarified and sourced -- not removed.

I would also like to add clear and properly sourced counter-arguments to this point of view, specifically:

• people should have heeded the warnings about a storm surge and devestating floods
• people should therefore have started to leave more than one day in advance of the hurricane's landfall
• the Mayor should not have delayed the mandatory evacuation order to a point (19 hours before landfall) when it was impossible for the poorest of his citizens to find a way out of the city
• the governor should have put aside her political differences (Democrat vs. Republican) and cooperated with federal authorities several days in advance, when there was still time to make plans and receive help
• if the mayor and governor had allowed it (requested it?), the federal government could have:
  1. evacuated the entire city in time, or
  2. ensured that those who remained behind would not drown in the flood

Perhaps it sounds like I'm biased, but I used to be a federal employee. Specifically, I was in the 101st Airborne Division. I know what a helicopter can do. I also know how much a rubber raft costs, and I know a few things about army logistics. A couple thousand men with trucks can distribute a lot of materiel in one day (if permitted to). A man I know is a New York City fire chief, and he personally told me of being forced to wait outside the city while the politicians wrangled over whether to let them come in and help people. This is ridiculous and very petty, people! --Uncle Ed 15:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

National Guard holdup

I seem to remember, news around the time of the hurricane, that the Arizona National Guard was ready and willing, before the hurricane hit New Orleans, to provide help - and informed the Gulf Coast authorities. But that they were not given the go-ahead until over a week after landfall. True, or more rumor? --Dumarest 20:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The governor of La. , as I remember, delayed much of the help offered to the state for some time such as placing Federal troops in New Orleans. The governor was asking for national help, but didn't view it as a national problem and many of the things that would infringe on the governor's power was pushed off. --Firebird 17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Cut section

Reluctance to accept domestic assistance

It is not yet known why FEMA refused assistance from Amtrak[3][4][5], the Coast Guard[6], the Navy[7], the City of Chicago[8], morticians[9], citizen flotillas[10], and first responders across the nation.[11]

---

These references are 9 months old. Surely we know the story by now. Did FEMA turn back legitimate and useful offers of aid from private, local or military sources? We should not say "it is not yet known" any more; it's no longer breaking news.

Would someone please look into this? --Uncle Ed 20:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

One-sided reports of federal bungling

A quick glance at the FEMA criticism shows it follows closely the "talking points" of a Democratic Party political blog. []

A pro-Bush site [12] counters a lot of this, saying Republican Bush rushed in as much aid as he could, but was stymied by refusal from the Democratic governor and Democratic mayor. --Uncle Ed 20:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So we are to take this "Pro Bush" site at its word eh? Sorry, A "Pro Bush" site would be the last source I would use.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Article cleanup

The article has been cleaned up, and I went through and formatted the references in accordance with WP:Footnotes, as well as removing dead link references. I also removed a lot of the POV fluff from the article as well. Dr. Cash 00:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

1. Well written? OK

2. Factually accurate? Fail (citations)

3. Broad in coverage? Fail (international, too US-centered)

4. Neutral point of view? OK

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Fail

Additional comments :

• Image:Bushplane.jpg needs to state its fair use rationale. Image:Kanyebush.jpg needs to give its copyright information.
• There are more than 5 paragraphs of lead section, cutting some would really help the reader situate the situation. Also, the lead section brings new information to the article, that shouldn't be the case.
• New Orleans has one of the highest poverty rates in the United States, at about 38%. These factors prevented many people from being able to evacuate on their own needs backup with a citation to prevent original research.
• They also said that the state had prepositioned enough food and water to supply 15,000 citizens with supplies for 3 days, the anticipated waiting period before FEMA would arrive in force and provide supplies for those still in the city. which means they had supplies for the 'resort people' for 3 days when the FEMA would come back to the resorts (such as Superdome), not like mentioned supplies for those still in the city. Re-writing this sentence is necessary.
• Later, it was found that FEMA had provided these supplies, but that Brown was greatly surprised by the much larger numbers of people who turned up seeking refuge, and also that Brown held back supply vehicles from delivering food and water for two days before they arrived on Friday, September 2., who is this Brown guy never mentioned before, and this line goes with the one before, for whom were the FEMA supplying food is not clear.
• because they are currently on a tour of duty in Iraq. should be stripped of its time-referencing word currently and changed to something that is timeless like : in Aug 2005, the national guards was in Iraq.
• If doubt is present here FEMA had apparently been at the Superdome three days earlier., then there is a need for a citation.
• The word EMS is used for the first time without being explained or wikilinked or even being mentioned before, can we see this remediated.
• The name Gov. Blanco is also being added without further linking/explaining.
• The recent Katrina hurricane, some say, was the first major test uses the word recent and should avoid it.
• According to many media outlets as well as many politicians the response to the disaster was inadequate in terms of leadership and response. already needs a citation for it has a tag.
• The line Operation Blessing is a charity founded, and still chaired by, Pat Robertson, the television evangelist with quite well-known political connections. could be an inflamatory one, it should be cited.
• I wonder if the word president shouldn't be capitalized in every instance in the text.
• State and local government subsection intermixes criticism of response and actions undertaken and confuses a reader like me.
• The buses were never deployed and then destroyed in the flooding., were the buses literally destroyed, who ascertained that?
• City and local response not well cited.
• International criticism subsection is underpopulated compared to the overwhelmingly large areas in other sections. Also, this is criticism toward international response instead of talking about real International criticism to what the US did.

This huge article still lacks in international response/international criticism to US response and still lacks citations. There are still areas where a good copyediting is required. This is a near-good article that needs just a bit of tuning to bring it into the good department. Good luck and for any information, insights or anything else, drop by my user's talk page. Lincher 17:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Lincher 17:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

How in the #*$&#*&$! can you say this article lacks citations?!?! There are 78 farking citations!!!! WTF?!?! Dr. Cash 03:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Response

With regards to Uncle Ed's and others' comments, I have added the following. Shouldn't that help?

Conservative response has been to suggest a tendency on the point of the critics to believe that government can solve everything and/or to accuse them of deliberately spewing untruths. In his book, The Politics of Disaster, Marvin Olasky seeks to put the Katrina disaster into historical perspective. The author of The Tragedy of American Compassion also warns against attributing blame too quickly. As Stephen Roberts reports in his book review, "media over-dramatization … magnified the negative impact of Katrina. … The mainstream media only exacerbated these logistical shortcomings with exaggerated claims of civic unrest, which in turn necessitated that every rescue mission have an armed contingent. It seems that the already beleaguered survivors in New Orleans had to bear an unnecessary storm of delay and deceit."

In addition, Fox News pointed out that the critics do not seem to know the laws of the land. If the federal government did not do more to provide help, it is because it is forbidden from doing so. “Federal law prevents the president from sending in the National Guard until the governor gives the order," says First Amendment lawyer John Armor. "It is little known, but the commanding general of the National Guard in every state reports to the governor, not the president, until the governor says otherwise. U.S. military units (regular Army, not the Guard) cannot be used because of the Posse Comitatus law, until the Guard has been authorized." Asteriks 12:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted and deleted this entire section. It was poorly written, seriously POV, and just made no sense to me whatsoever. Dr. Cash 03:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

article's title

shouldn't the article's name be 'criticism of american government response to hurricane katrina'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.212.177.81 (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Isn't FEMA an exclusively American institution anyway? Indiawilliams 04:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Firearms confiscation

The following section:

====Confiscation of firearms====

Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order to local police, National Guard troops, and US Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. Angered citizens, backed by the National Rifle Association and other organizations, filed protests over the constitutionality of such an order and the difficulty in tracking seizures, as paperwork was rarely filed during the searches. Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, defended the right of affected citizens to retain firearms, saying that, "What we’ve seen in Louisiana - the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of disaster - is exactly the kind of situation where the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves."

The searches received little news coverage, though reaction from groups such as the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Gun Owners of America was immediate and heated, and a lawsuit was filed September 22 by the NRA and SAF on behalf of two firearm owners whose firearms were seized. On September 23, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued a restraining order to bar further firearms confiscations. [13] [14]

After refusing to admit that it had any seized firearms, the city revealed in mid-March that it did have a cache of some 1000 firearms seized after the hurricane[15]; this disclosure came after the NRA filed a motion in court to hold the city in contempt for failure to comply with the U.S. District Court's earlier order to return all seized firearms. On April 14, 2006, it was announced that the city will begin to return seized firearms; citizens whose firearms were seized must provide proof of ownership, identification, and undergo a background check before the firearms will be returned[16].

On April 24, 2006, the Louisiana House passed HB 760, which would prohibit confiscation of firearms in a state of emergency, unless the seizure is pursuant to the investigation of a crime, or if the seizure is necessary to prevent immediate harm to the officer or another individual. The bill must be approved by the state Senate before it can be passed into law[17]

was removed in July, with no explanation or comment on the talk page. HB 760 has since passed and been signed into law, and there are a number of similar bills in other states that were passed in response to the actions in New Orleans. The ordeal still isn't over; back in February a Federal court held the mayor and cheif of police in contempt of court for failing to disclose documents relevant to the case they were ordered to produce in November[18], and the case is still in court[19]. I propose to restore this section, and possibly split it between this article (covering the events) and Political effects of Hurricane Katrina (covering HB760, similar bills, and the SAF/NRA lawsuit). scot 18:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated and re-added. scot (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Kanye West - West Coast

I've already edited this page once! I don't care what source tells you that the west coast didn't see Kanye West's statement that George Bush doesn't care about black people. I live in Phoenix, and I saw it all live. I know I saw it, because I remember largely ignoring Kanye West's first statement, cuz I wan't listening closely, but I sure heard the second part. Please don't change this fact back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.101.1.126 (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Lengthy

Does anybody else find this article incredibly lengthy? I think it needs to be split into more sub-sections. Altonbr 17:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Too little criticism.

This article has too much criticism of the federal government and too little for the state and local government. The state and local government are AT LEAST as culpable in what happened as the federal government. I will be balancing it out later.--Rotten 03:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Race as a factor in the slow response

I have a few problems with the first paragraph of this section:

1. Should the statement "on the fact that poor urban blacks have not supported the administration of President Bush" need a reference?
2. The quotation from Reverend Jackson is not closed. I assume that the quote should finish at the full stop, but I don't have the quote so I'm not sure. Also, no source is given again.
3. After the quotation there is a very biased criticism against Reverend Jackson's position, which reads like an opinion piece. If it is meant to be a quote, then the author needs to be given. Otherwise it should probably be deleted
4. Finally, the whole paragraph seems biased to me (for the above reasons, and some choice of words like "claimed". --WikiWizard 11:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Top Gear

Top gear in their show, "Top Gear Take on the US" had a small section about how the US Gov handled the event a year on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2syY12OPkwI Lama12 (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)