FEMA choice an immoral act / LJWorld.com

Archive for Wednesday, July 25, 2007

By Leonard Pitts Jr.

July 25, 2007

A few words about morality and the storm.

Meaning Katrina, which was a devastating hurricane, yes, but also a kind of Rorschach ink blot of right and wrong. Virtually from the moment it lumbered ashore at daybreak on Aug. 29, 2005, the storm began raising pointed ethical questions.

As in: Is it moral to break into a flooded and abandoned store in search of food and water? How about televisions and athletic shoes? Is it moral for storm-bound health care workers to euthanize critically ill patients? Is it moral for the suburbs to turn desperate evacuees from the city away at gunpoint?

Safe and dry, we have argued these and other questions from the comfort of our armchairs. It was a moral parlor game, a harmless way of plumbing the depths of conscience, pondering who and how we would be if ever we stood, or seemed to stand, at the end of all things.

Last week's news about FEMA raised an entirely different question about morality: Namely, does this federal agency have any?

Don't bet on it. It seems the Federal Emergency Management Agency refused, on the advice of its lawyers, to test whether the trailers it provided for hurricane evacuees contained unsafe levels of formaldehyde. According to documents released by Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, when FEMA staffers urged the agency to respond to reports of formaldehyde in the trailers, they received an e-mail from a FEMA lawyer that said, "Do not initiate any testing until we give the OK. Once you get results, the clock is running on our duty to respond to them."

In other words, if we discover that the more than 120,000 trailers and mobile homes we have provided to families along the Gulf Coast are reeking with a toxic gas, we'll be obligated to replace them. So it's better if we don't know.

Which raises a few moral questions of its own:

Is it moral to let women breathe a gas that may cause respiratory illness in order to save money?

Is it moral to leave men in conditions that may cause raw throats and burning eyes so as to avoid responsibility?

Is it moral to expose children to a compound believed to cause cancer if it helps cover one's backside?

Apparently, for FEMA, the answers are yes, yes and yes. Which fits with jigsaw snugness the mind-set of an administration that frequently chooses to refuse acceptance of knowledge that challenges its preconceptions. It also points up with piercing clarity the hypocrisy of that same administration's frequent claims of fealty to the divine.

In the gospel of Matthew (25:40), after all, Jesus famously identifies himself with the poor. "Insomuch as you have done it to the least of these, my brethren, you have done it also unto me."

Economically speaking, the victims of Hurricane Katrina are among the least of these, "our" brethren. The Census Bureau estimates the median yearly income in Orleans Parish at a little more than $27,000. Yet after giving them inattention and incompetence, the federal government now gives them indifference.

As moral choices go, I would argue this is more damning than looting, euthanizing or meeting evacuees with guns. Say what you will about those decisions, but at least they were made in the heat of the moment, by people who saw the world falling down around them.

FEMA's decision, by contrast, was cool, considered ... and unfathomably cruel. And if its purpose was to shield the agency from legal repercussions, it's also now a failure. Surely every trailer dweller who's ever had so much as a headache is now seeking legal representation.

Something tells me FEMA is about to pay a high price for treating human beings like dirt. Morally, that's just fine with me.

- Leonard Pitts Jr., winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a columnist for the Miami Herald.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

25 July 2007
at 8:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

“FEMA staffers urged the agency to respond to reports of formaldehyde in the trailers…”

It seems to me that these FEMA staffers were acting ethically. But if FEMA attorneys don't act ethically, Mr. Pitts concludes that FEMA, as an agency, is unethical?
25 July 2007
at 8:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Any member of an organization with enough power to control the actions of the front-lines of that organization is thus a key representative of that organization. So yes, the lawyer makes the organization unethical. Still, I think you're deluding yourself to think it was one lawyer, or even just the lawyers. A decision of this potential magnitude would undoubtedly require clearance to initiate in most standard bureaucracies.

As for Pitts, if he had managed to restrain himself, just this once, from dragging the administration into this letter, as difficult as he apparently finds that to do, this would have been a much stronger column. Written as it was, it becomes just a cheap shot. Really, at this point do we NEED cheap shots to discredit this administration? It seems that they have given us plenty of fair and open ammunition already.
25 July 2007
at 8:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Don't be ridiculous. Staffers don't have the authority to go against the advice of anyone. supervisors, however, do…and those staffers could have whistled to the press a long, long time ago…
25 July 2007
at 9:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

wtf— fema is exhibit A in domestic affairs on how corrupt and incompetent this administration is. There is no separation between the behavior and performance of FEMA and the behavior and performance of this regime.
25 July 2007
at 9:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“Reeking of toxic gas”…. nice hyperbole.

Is it moral to have thousands of temporary shelter trailers sitting unused, with storm refugees left out in the elements?

This article stinks, but not of formalin.
25 July 2007
at 9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

“There is no separation between the behavior and performance of FEMA and the behavior and performance of this regime.”

Unless you believe that they actually called Bush or Cheney for clearance on this, and I can't see how you rationally could think that to be likely, there is, in face, a separation, at least on this particular issue. If you want to link FEMA and the incompetence of the Administration, stick with the original botched job of the clean-up, rescue and recovery. It's certainly a less conspiratorial position from which to operate. This smells too clearly of in-house.

Pick your battles. Keep yelling the same thing (especially w/o concrete proof), and people stop listening. Didn't you ever read that fairy tale?
25 July 2007
at 10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

So, since FEMA is still having lots of serious problems, I guess Brown wasn't the one creating them? Pretty sure he was already long gone before the formaldehyde story started…poor man was just the fall guy, you know…

On a side note…a friend of mine submitted a claim to FEMA for flood damage. They denied his claim, and informed him that not only didn't we get nearly 13 inches of rain here on Sat., June 30, but it didn't rain here at all that weekend…

Sounds like a bunch of losers to me…the county has already been determined a disaster area, but FEMA doesn't even know it rained…

25 July 2007
at 10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TJ_in_Lawrence (Anonymous) says…

Once again the “I hate Bush” crew has to return to it's vomit. Since when is FEMA a Republican or Democratic organization? The entire staff of FEMA does not change every time we elect a new President. You people need to find a new tune. The “I hate Bush” thing just sounds like, “wolf, wolf, wolf” and it makes the rest of us tune you out.
25 July 2007
at 11:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

chchcherrybomb (Anonymous) says…

Brownie, you're doing a great job . . .
25 July 2007
at 11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

The point is, Logic, I guess the staffers could have done something, but not with any authority, and in such case would have risked losing their jobs…a daunting idea for most people.

They could have become whistleblowers and gone to the press, but they probably would have been fired for doing so…even though there's supposed to be a law to protect people who do…it rarely does…
25 July 2007
at 11:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mick (Anonymous) says…

Cry me a river Leonard Pitts.
25 July 2007
at 11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

“TJ_in_Lawrence (Anonymous) says:

Once again the “I hate Bush” crew has to return to it's vomit”

You mean the one person, by the time of your posting? That's an interesting definition of a “crowd.”

Maybe, in the future, you should try and read for comprehension, and not just for reaction. It might save you from looking… well, reactionary.
25 July 2007
at 11:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ontheotherhand (Anonymous) says…

TJ, I think you need to pay more attention to news that comes from legitimate sources. While one cannot argue that FEMA is neither Rep or Dem, one CAN argue that GW Bush (Rep) was the one who hired M Brown to lead FEMA. This hiring decision would not have made any difference to anyone had not Mr Brown so badly botched up FEMA's role in Katrina. It is very well-documented that Brown was unequivocally qualified for this job. Putting the wrong people in charge is always pretty harmless until there is a disaster . . .

I don't care if GW Bush is a Republican, a Democrat, or a Wiccan. He has made numerous mistakes and this is yet another one. So, before you start accusing people of riding the “I hate Bush” train, maybe you should read more carefully and realize that many of us are criticizing a leader for his poor judgment, just as we would criticize a poor worker in our businesses. Believe it or not, there are a few of us out here who judge people on their effectiveness and performance, and not on their political party affiliation, their fraternity, their church, or their fundraising abilities.
25 July 2007
at 12:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mkh (Anonymous) says…

“Make Levees, Not War”.
25 July 2007
at 1:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ontheotherhand (Anonymous) says…

greyheim says:

“Believe it or not, there are a few of us out here who judge people on their effectiveness and performance, and not on their political party affiliation, their fraternity, their church, or their fundraising abilities.”
-
unless you're a “liberal”, then, no matter what your reason, you “hate” george bush.

===============================
Well, greyheim, I am sorry that you assume that when people use the words “political party affiliation, their fraternity, their church, or their fundraising abilities,” they are referring to GW Bush. That's something (false assumptions) that you will have to work on privately. I thought I made it pretty clear that I criticize people no matter who they are. For what it is worth (I know this is going to be a hard concept for you but TRY to grasp it), I believe that none of our past presidents are without blemish, and I (as well as others) have criticized them as well, but you probably did not see that because you were too busy assigning affiliations that fit your simple understanding (he criticizes Bush so he must be a liberal jerk; she criticizes Clinton so she must be a cool Republican).

Again, I know this might be painful for you, but TRY to face the realization that some people actually measure people on their leadership skills, effectiveness, and accountability. This is how I do it in my job; it's how I do it in my private life. In my opinion, the two shouldn't differ. If you cannot grasp that, Simple One, then I am very glad that you do not work for me or with me.

25 July 2007
at 2:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

Does Mr Pitts have any evidence of FEMA officials knowing of possible toxic levels of formaldehyde in this structures? Or is he only reacting some some commentary by lawyers to not test the trailers in question, lest they risk being stuck in some regulatory limbo?

IF the first, then there is a basis to further investigation - though overblown claims of 'immorality' are hardly in order - 'gross incompetence' might be more applicable.

If the second, then this is just another piece of speculatory garbage that's passed for informed journalistic opinion these days.

So, where did this amazingly poisonous toxic must-be-the-same-as-WWI-chlorine-gas chemical come from? It's not discussed by Pitts. Was it one of the stops made by the black-helicoptered explosives crew that blew up the levies, and machine-gunned all the innocents in the Superdome - where they sprayed gallons and gallons of the stuff in each trailer to ensure killing the poor refugees soon to inhabit them? Or was this just a recognition of a detail of new construction using certain building materials, such as chipboard or plywood or some adhesives that may off-gas certain volatiles, such as formaldehyde?

Were there any additional documents or reports attached with this detail, that Mr. Pitts fails to mention?

We don't know. Yet again, some media columnist pulls the strings of uninformed readers and makes them jump to his tune, like trained over-politicized meat-puppets.
25 July 2007
at 3:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ontheotherhand (Anonymous) says…

Sorry greyheim. I haven't read you enough to realize that you were being sarcastic . . .

I don't see this as a liberal vs rr extremist issue. Seems like way too many people treat the government like High School student council (“stick with me and I will make sure we always have pizza in the lunchroom!”). I'm really hoping, for example, that right_thinker is just joking when he turns every argument into something negative against members of the Democratic party. It sounds so juvenile and sophomoric (actually, very Rush Limbaugh-like) that I think he really must be pulling our legs. But he does it everyday. I guess I hope he is really some 10th Grader who has nothing better to do.

My brother-in-law does the same thing, which baffles me. I will mention my disappointment over something Bush has done and he will start talking about Clinton. And I will look at him and say, “Excuse me, does Clinton work here?” I guess he doesn't realize that I would say the same thing about Clinton because he cannot get past the High School Student Council Syndrome. Do you think RT has it, too?
25 July 2007
at 4:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

oh, ls04, back behind the woodshed we must go…. again.

http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease….

206 complaints over a total of 120,000 units is less than 2/1000's having a objectionable problem, of which nearly any of these would have been solved by ventilation. Not “cleaning” as someone above mentioned, but merely opening a window or two for a short time to ventilate.

This is journalistic fluffery at best, and cheap politics at worst. Pitts in his element.
25 July 2007
at 9:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blessed3x (Anonymous) says…

And most of you people want to take the same government that runs FEMA and put them in charge of my families health care. I keep telling myself that the citizens of the US couldn't possibly be stupid enough to let this happen.

That is right, isn't it?

Well? Isn't it?

Hello?

Good grief, where's the tylenol!