[Dialogue] By way of Australia
LAURELCG@aol.com
LAURELCG at aol.com
Sat Sep 3 23:20:35 EDT 2005
Forwarded by Jann McGuire.
We in Australia have been following the agonies of the Gulf States with
great concern - and appreciating hearing the challenges to the complacency
of many who were in a position to have been better prepared. I am not sure
if this article has done the rounds but it is quite something when Byron
Katie feels moved to enter such a discussion through her newsletter. If you
are not familiar with The Work of Byron Katie, we strongly commend it. www
thework.com She is a mystic who has made a valuable contribution by
developing a Four-Question process to help people get beneath their
assumptions. One of her classic quotes: "When you argue with reality, you
lose. But only 100% of the time,"
Shaz has provided a wonderful example of a clash of memes (Spiral Dynamics)
and illustrates the difficulty of communicating between worldviews at
different levels of development, and the difficulty that lower level memes
have in fully understanding the principles of democracy.
Best wishes in a difficult time for so many people.
Deirdre Hanna and Ian Mavor
Gold Coast, Australia
From: Newsletter at thework.com
To: Newsletter at thework.com
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 10:35 AM
Subject: A Message From Byron Katie
Dearest Family,
It came to me to forward to you the following op-ed piece from the New York
Times. In my experience, love is action. And an unquestioned mind is the
only suffering in the world--but only totally.
Peace, love, and action,
kt
A Can't-Do Government
By Paul Krugman
Before 9/11 the Federal Emergency Management Agency listed the three most
likely catastrophic disasters facing America: a terrorist attack on New York
a major earthquake in San Francisco and a hurricane strike on New Orleans.
The New Orleans hurricane scenario," The Houston Chronicle wrote in December
2001, "may be the deadliest of all." It described a potential catastrophe
very much like the one now happening.
So why were New Orleans and the nation so unprepared? After 9/11, hard
questions were deferred in the name of national unity, then buried under a
thick coat of whitewash. This time, we need accountability.
First question: Why have aid and security taken so long to arrive? Katrina
hit five days ago - and it was already clear by last Friday that Katrina
could do immense damage along the Gulf Coast. Yet the response you'd expect
from an advanced country never happened. Thousands of Americans are dead or
dying, not because they refused to evacuate, but because they were too poor
or too sick to get out without help - and help wasn't provided. Many have
yet to receive any help at all.
There will and should be many questions about the response of state and
local governments; in particular, couldn't they have done more to help the
poor and sick escape? But the evidence points, above all, to a stunning lack
of both preparation and urgency in the federal government's response.
Even military resources in the right place weren't ordered into action. "On
Wednesday," said an editorial in The Sun Herald in Biloxi, Miss., "reporters
listening to horrific stories of death and survival at the Biloxi Junior
High School shelter looked north across Irish Hill Road and saw Air Force
personnel playing basketball and performing calisthenics. Playing basketball
and performing calisthenics!"
Maybe administration officials believed that the local National Guard could
keep order and deliver relief. But many members of the National Guard and
much of its equipment - including high-water vehicles - are in Iraq. "The
National Guard needs that equipment back home to support the homeland
security mission," a Louisiana Guard officer told reporters several weeks
ago.
Second question: Why wasn't more preventive action taken? After 2003 the
Army Corps of Engineers sharply slowed its flood-control work, including
work on sinking levees. "The corps," an Editor and Publisher article says,
citing a series of articles in The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, "never
tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as
well as homeland security - coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -
was the reason for the strain."
In 2002 the corps' chief resigned, reportedly under threat of being fired,
after he criticized the administration's proposed cuts in the corps' budget,
including flood-control spending.
Third question: Did the Bush administration destroy FEMA's effectiveness?
The administration has, by all accounts, treated the emergency management
agency like an unwanted stepchild, leading to a mass exodus of experienced
professionals.
Last year James Lee Witt, who won bipartisan praise for his leadership of
the agency during the Clinton years, said at a Congressional hearing: "I am
extremely concerned that the ability of our nation to prepare for and
respond to disasters has been sharply eroded. I hear from emergency managers
local and state leaders, and first responders nearly every day that the
FEMA they knew and worked well with has now disappeared."
I don't think this is a simple tale of incompetence. The reason the military
wasn't rushed in to help along the Gulf Coast is, I believe, the same reason
nothing was done to stop looting after the fall of Baghdad. Flood control
was neglected for the same reason our troops in Iraq didn't get adequate
armor.
At a fundamental level, I'd argue, our current leaders just aren't serious
about some of the essential functions of government. They like waging war,
but they don't like providing security, rescuing those in need or spending
on preventive measures. And they never, ever ask for shared sacrifice.
Yesterday Mr. Bush made an utterly fantastic claim: that nobody expected the
breach of the levees. In fact, there had been repeated warnings about
exactly that risk.
So America, once famous for its can-do attitude, now has a can't-do
government that makes excuses instead of doing its job. And while it makes
those excuses, Americans are dying.
More information about the Dialogue
mailing list