FEMA and the response to Hurricane Katrina
I hope we in the U.S. have learned to accept every weather warning as a “fire drill,” which usually are structured school or business exercises. Do not hear these warnings as advisories; listen. The federal, state and local governments, and many residents as well, who heard the warnings about Katrina were complacent, basing their evaluations on previous storms and other warnings that did not pan out.
But the strength of nature has been well-documented not only in New Orleans but also everywhere around the Mississippi. Read “Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How It Changed America,” by John M. Barry, a book based on years of studies, evaluations and predictions. To a great extent, the Federal Emergency Management Agency was developed as a result of the issues of the Mississippi River.
Last week, though, physicians gathered around the world to come help. But when they called FEMA and wanted to know where to go, FEMA said, “We’ll call you.” (I know personally of two such instances.)
Why did so few listen to the warning?
Debbie Narrod, Denver
…
The Senate and House of Representatives soon will start to assign blame for unpreparedness and unresponsiveness in the wake of Katrina. Some good may come of it, though much of the debate will be only to impress voters. Regardless, Congress first should act to put our money toward relief and reconstruction along the Gulf Coast. As easily as our elected representatives loaded the recent transportation bill with pet projects, they can vote to defer the billions of “pork” dollars in favor of urgently needed help.
I am not naive enough to think that Congress will give up its boondoggles. But senators or congressmen who aren’t willing merely to defer their windfalls should be ashamed, and condemned by their constituencies.
W.E. Hoffman, Estes Park
…
A year ago, a Category 5 hurricane hit Cuba with 160 mph winds. By the time it hit the island, 1.5 million people had already been evacuated to higher ground, and there were no deaths. Twenty thousand homes were destroyed. The Cuban government decided several decades ago to pay up front with meticulous planning and preparation, and when Hurricane Ivan hit, they were ready and were able to move those people out of harm’s way.
Say what you will about Fidel Castro and his government, but if a hurricane is coming my way, I hope my government has as good a plan as the Cubans’.
John Shippey, Denver
…
Re: “Response to Hurricane Katrina,” Sept. 4 Open Forum.
While most Americans are showing boundless compassion and generosity to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, the anti-war, Bush-hating liberal crowd has attempted to somehow connect this incredibly difficult rescue operation with the war in Iraq and, of course, President Bush. Their exploitation of human misery for political gain is so transparent, so predictable and so pathetic.
Neil Shankweiler, Arvada
…
Re: “Mississippi’s quieter suffering,” Sept. 7 editorial.
I find it interesting that you express concern for Mississippi with regard to post-Katrina resources. Given that the state’s senior senator is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Commitee, the junior senator is the former Senate majority leader and the governor is the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, I would urge caution that Mississippi may garner more, not less, than its fair share of resources. Only time will tell.
David S. Goldberg, Golden
John Roberts’ nomination to Supreme Court
Re: “Roberts promoted while hearings loom,” Sept. 6 editorial.
Regarding John Roberts’ nomination to serve as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, The Post writes, “It is famously known that Roberts’ wife is anti-choice.” The Post could have stated that she is “pro-life,” which I suspect is how she would describe her position. The Post cast Ms. Roberts – and, by association, the judge – in the most negative light possible. It is sad that The Post stooped to this kind of language, which only serves to widen the political chasms and increase angry rhetoric.
Paul Farley, Bailey
…
Re: “John Roberts by the numbers,” Sept. 6 Andrew Cohen column.
I read Andrew Cohen’s column several times looking for this number, but he appears to have omitted it:
Years John Roberts has served as a judge: 2.
Yes, that’s right. Two years of judicial experience and he’s nominated for chief justice of the highest court in the land. That’s what I call the fast track.
Anna Richards, Brighton
…
Why are John Roberts’ opponents looking for 15-year-old material when all the necessary facts are staring them right in the face?
Roberts is a) a lifelong Republican; b) a devout Catholic; c) a lawyer whose every government appointment came from Republican administrations; d) who otherwise represented Republican corporate/industrial interests; and e) was appointed by George W. Bush.
Does anyone not know that only dedicated conservatives get a job in Bush’s administration? In short, Roberts is a clone of Antonin Scalia with a touch of Dick Cheney. But he’s cute and young.
Scott Mock, Boulder
Revisiting Columbine
What good can possibly come from releasing the videotapes and diaries of the two Columbine shooters? As a graduate of Columbine High School, and a student there when the shooting happened, I can see no possible positive side for the community. I believe people just want the tapes released out of morbid curiosity rather than an honest desire to further the healing. These tapes and diaries, if released, will only serve to dredge up old memories and reopen healed wounds of many people involved in the incident.
I believe these documents could be helpful to mental-health professionals as a case study and to law enforcement officials for the same reason. But to release them to the public just adds fuel to the rumor-mongers’ fires and pain to our hearts.
Please hear this plea from a student from Columbine – let our wounds heal at last. Keep the diaries and tapes out of the public forum, and stop fanning the flames of hate.
Devon Adams, Littleton
Health insurance
Re: “Best care for workers not ensured,” Sept. 5 David Harsanyi column.
David Harsanyi believes that when it comes to health care, we should be able to buy coverage in the market, to suit our “individual needs.” What an absurd notion. A rich man with cancer and a poor man with cancer have exactly the same needs, yet the market recognizes only one fact: the rich man can buy what he needs and the poor man cannot. Mandating that everyone buy health insurance and freeing insurance companies to market woefully inadequate benefits to those who can afford nothing else will only compound the current crisis in health care.
Nevertheless, it is possible to provide universal access to health insurance by mandating individual coverage for everyone. Switzerland has done it this way for years, recognizing not that individuals have different needs, but rather that they have different means. The Swiss government mandates a basic but comprehensive insurance package that all insurers must offer and the government heavily subsidizes the premiums for those who cannot afford them. As a system, it’s a far cry from a “free market” – insurers are tightly regulated and much of the risk is socialized. But like every developed country but our own, the Swiss at least recognize that in illness we are all equal.
Mark Earnest, M.D., Vice President, Colorado Coalition for the Medically Underserved, Denver
TO REACH US
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
