Katrina The Man-Made Disaster
09.17.05You need to read this excellent article about how the crap going on in New Orleans is completely man made.
It took four long days for state and federal officials to figure out how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can’t blame them, because it also took me four long days to figure out what was going on there. The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that we are confronting a natural disaster.
If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials is obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation to evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop the flooding and rebuild the city’s infrastructure. For journalists, natural disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary people pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of doctors, nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up and rebuild.
Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to do is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they are suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists—myself included—did not expect that the story would not be about rain, wind, and flooding, but about rape, murder, and looting.
But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster.
The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or incompetent response by federal relief agencies, and it was not directly caused by Hurricane Katrina. This is where just about every newspaper and television channel has gotten the story wrong.
The man-made disaster we are now witnessing in New Orleans did not happen over four days last week. It happened over the past four decades. Hurricane Katrina merely exposed it to public view.
The man-made disaster is the welfare state.





Wow chad, this is a great article! Who ARE your wonderful sources?? She rocks. I mean.. the person..is cool..
# September 17th, 2005 at 6:42 pmChad, I agree with Chad. Chad source’s some very informative pieces. Good work Chad.
# September 17th, 2005 at 8:44 pmI’m pretty sure that first Chad wasn’t THE Chad… so.. something very fishy is going on ’round here.
Cos obviously… that first Chad woulden’t be asking stupid questions like “who my sources are” cos the Real Chad would be smart enough to click the link that says “Continue Reading” and find out who the source actually is.
-The Real Chad Coleman
# September 17th, 2005 at 9:30 pmConfused much? Why do I have the theme to the late 70’s TV show “SOAP” playing in my head, was it the Tates and the Colemans?
# September 17th, 2005 at 11:50 pmEr. I didn’t even notice that I was under your name. Weird. I was only on the shop comp and just wrote the comment and sent it without even noticing or filling out a name/mail.
# September 18th, 2005 at 3:12 pmInteresting article, I did enjoy seeing the viewpoint. Though I see several possible faults with the article:
The author admits that they cannot prove: “reports from CNN and Fox indicated that the city had no plan for evacuating all of the prisoners in the city’s jails—so they just let many of them loose”. When creating an argument, making points that you know are unverifiable is probably not a good idea.
Also, what I see to be the crux of the argument: “There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New Orleans when the deluge hit—but they were trapped alongside large numbers of people from two groups: criminals—and wards of the welfare state”. This claim seems to not be backed up. In other words; what percentage of the people left after Katrina relied on Welfare? I personally find the claim intuitive, but intuition is not fact. What would strengthen this point is saying that the majority of the violent people lived in projects and not “affordable housing”. This is because project tenants are essentially subsided by the government. From what I could determine, the tenant usually has to pay some percentage of rent (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_projects#United_States). I am sure there are probably some women that are essentially walking baby factories that produce enough dependants to have their rent waved.
Overall though, I find the argument to be pretty good.
# September 23rd, 2005 at 8:03 am