kajarainbow (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
kajarainbow) wrote2005-09-23 07:25 pm
kajarainbow) wrote2005-09-23 07:25 pm
Entry tags:
I finally talk about Katrina. And government yet again.
I've been waiting until my thoughts (and reading) on this finally built to the point where I could write something with actual meat. I write this in part because what happened to the people of New Orleans, and the government's handling of it, really did horrify me.
Factcheck.org's timeline of the events associated with Katrina is a very worthwhile read, as it basically documents the actual timing of many events, including the governor's declaration of a state of emergency and request for help, specific statements and claims made by various persons, etc.
"Freedom Force" lists instances of FEMA obstructionism.
Thoughts about government's co-option of all roles associated with rescue and aid efforts in Katrina; I could extract the Katrina-specific material and this would still have a lot of meat:
I agree with some but not all of the latter link's positing about FEMA's handling of Katrina. I suspect that in many cases, it would be more an issue of psychology than conscious intention. Basically, the government officials are the ones appointed to handle a specific situation. They are appointed by upper authorities, and any outsiders attempting to assume their duties are ignorant, unqualified, or butting in where they are unwanted.
The flood of offers of non-goverment aid is a threat to the government agency's mandate to handle the situation. So the government agency acts to block off this threat. It's not necessarily a deliberate power grab. It's very possibly merely a bristling at the presumption of others attempting to do what is ones duty.
Groups are self-defending and self-perpetuating. One sees this a lot in bureaucracies. Government agencies are created to exert authority over some specific field, and to use force if necessary to defend that authority. This, I think, is the real danger of creeping government involvement into many roles. They begin shoving out others, and they have the muscle to do it. They, in short, attempt to establish absolute control over this field.
You see it in attempts to control what may go into the media. You see it in government-approved companies getting many contracts (i.e. Halliburton) rather than independent companies not so tightly tied with the government. You see it in decisions over what businesses/groups/classes/etc. deserve to do well and what deserve it less; thus who gets more aid and favors. Both Democrats and Republicans do this. You see it in government-mandated monopolies such as the Postal Office: only the government may deliver mail, only the government may print money, only the government may...
It is not merely enough that something be done well. It must be done well under their auspice. And thus, a great part of those people's efforts are diverted to ensuring it is done under their auspices before ensuring it is done well.
You see this same attitude in petty bureaucrats and other such like-minded persons everywhere, in any sector of society public and private. You've likely had to deal with people like that, who insist on doing things their utterly wrong way. But government authorities are by definition elevated above all other. They have more power to exert their wills, both noble and petty, and others have less ability to resist them.
I do not think New Orleans was necessarily all about race or all about economic status. They played roles in assorted ways: racist suburban police blocking attempts to flee into their territories, the poor having less power to act on their own and thus being more vulnerable to the control of government, and so on. But the prevailing attitude I noticed in all those obstructions, those refusals of valuable aid, was institutional arrogance.
Most people pretty much regard monopolies as undesirable. But how many of them realize that giving a duty to a government often invites that government to attempt to assume an absolute monopoly over that duty? And a normal property of any monopoly is that it acts to restrict new entrants, including disinformation. This sort of behavior is common in any monopoly, regardless of its nature, whether corporate, government, unions, or etc.
A lot of absurd governmental actions make more sense when you look at them in this light; that it is less important whether it is done well than whether they control how it is done. They focus too much on the method. Again, I am not claiming this is necessarily conscious intention. Nevertheless, it is what often happens with people given powerful levels of authority in a rigid power structure with specific procedures.
Factcheck.org's timeline of the events associated with Katrina is a very worthwhile read, as it basically documents the actual timing of many events, including the governor's declaration of a state of emergency and request for help, specific statements and claims made by various persons, etc.
"Freedom Force" lists instances of FEMA obstructionism.
Thoughts about government's co-option of all roles associated with rescue and aid efforts in Katrina; I could extract the Katrina-specific material and this would still have a lot of meat:
I agree with some but not all of the latter link's positing about FEMA's handling of Katrina. I suspect that in many cases, it would be more an issue of psychology than conscious intention. Basically, the government officials are the ones appointed to handle a specific situation. They are appointed by upper authorities, and any outsiders attempting to assume their duties are ignorant, unqualified, or butting in where they are unwanted.
The flood of offers of non-goverment aid is a threat to the government agency's mandate to handle the situation. So the government agency acts to block off this threat. It's not necessarily a deliberate power grab. It's very possibly merely a bristling at the presumption of others attempting to do what is ones duty.
Groups are self-defending and self-perpetuating. One sees this a lot in bureaucracies. Government agencies are created to exert authority over some specific field, and to use force if necessary to defend that authority. This, I think, is the real danger of creeping government involvement into many roles. They begin shoving out others, and they have the muscle to do it. They, in short, attempt to establish absolute control over this field.
You see it in attempts to control what may go into the media. You see it in government-approved companies getting many contracts (i.e. Halliburton) rather than independent companies not so tightly tied with the government. You see it in decisions over what businesses/groups/classes/etc. deserve to do well and what deserve it less; thus who gets more aid and favors. Both Democrats and Republicans do this. You see it in government-mandated monopolies such as the Postal Office: only the government may deliver mail, only the government may print money, only the government may...
It is not merely enough that something be done well. It must be done well under their auspice. And thus, a great part of those people's efforts are diverted to ensuring it is done under their auspices before ensuring it is done well.
You see this same attitude in petty bureaucrats and other such like-minded persons everywhere, in any sector of society public and private. You've likely had to deal with people like that, who insist on doing things their utterly wrong way. But government authorities are by definition elevated above all other. They have more power to exert their wills, both noble and petty, and others have less ability to resist them.
I do not think New Orleans was necessarily all about race or all about economic status. They played roles in assorted ways: racist suburban police blocking attempts to flee into their territories, the poor having less power to act on their own and thus being more vulnerable to the control of government, and so on. But the prevailing attitude I noticed in all those obstructions, those refusals of valuable aid, was institutional arrogance.
Most people pretty much regard monopolies as undesirable. But how many of them realize that giving a duty to a government often invites that government to attempt to assume an absolute monopoly over that duty? And a normal property of any monopoly is that it acts to restrict new entrants, including disinformation. This sort of behavior is common in any monopoly, regardless of its nature, whether corporate, government, unions, or etc.
A lot of absurd governmental actions make more sense when you look at them in this light; that it is less important whether it is done well than whether they control how it is done. They focus too much on the method. Again, I am not claiming this is necessarily conscious intention. Nevertheless, it is what often happens with people given powerful levels of authority in a rigid power structure with specific procedures.