Nick and I are watching "When the Levees Broke" on HBO a little at a time. It's a Spike Lee film and---like Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"---is a film that everyone in America should actually see. Neither film is what you'd call comfortable. But both deal with issues that we'd all rather not face.
I've only seen "Act 1" of the "Levees" film so far. It's not something I can handle except a bit at a time. But to hear the people of New Orleans tell their own stories has tremendous value. I think it's important, as I've said at various times, to cultivate empathy. I think empathy is the antidote to judgment; it makes you stand in other people's shoes for a bit, to see how the world looks to them.
One of the best things about The Day the Levees Broke is its restraint (so far). The people being interviewed are restrained. They tell their stories calmly. The worst (so far) is the man whose mother died at the Superdome while the two of them were sitting out in the 100 degree temperature, waiting for buses that didn't arrive in time for her.
It isn't a comforting film----particularly since it's still hurricane season and New Orleans remains as vulnerable. And to watch it is to relive the frustration and fear that is evoked by the spectacle of a disaster of such proportions that the government cannot effectively meet it. I still don't understand that part of the story. I don't understand why help offered by other countries was turned away or why we couldn't get aid to more of those people sooner.
When the Bush Administration talks now about our "elevated terror threat", I wonder if they understand how much more frightening the prospect is after what we saw following Katrina. I certainly support the government's efforts to prevent an attack; but I would like to feel confidence in the government's ability to deal with the consequences. The aftermath of Katrina didn't really leave me with the sense that they have spent a lot of time working out what to do if such an attack occurs.
I mean, suppose the levees had been dynamited or something? Regardless of how the flooding occurred, we'd presumably have seen the same aftermath.
Maybe one of the reasons I find Gordon Ramsay's show (Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares) so comforting is the reminder that there are people out there who understand the importance of attention to detail, constant vigilance, advance planning, and efficiency. I wish we had some sort of government watchdog who would perform the same function with respect to these different agencies and do it live and on television for the edification of the viewer.
Last night, I watched an episode where he went into a really sad restaurant in a small Yorkshire town. It was apparent to me from the outset that both the owner of the restaurant and the 21 year old chef apparent were utterly lacking in Ramsay's passion for the right thing. He went through the disgusting mess in the refrigerator like a force of nature; he made the much-too-young chef go with him to the market to purchase ingredients and then cook a test meal; he tried to get the strangely disaffected owner to understand her responsibility to provide oversight; he reached out to members of the community to find out from them where they had felt let down by the services. In the end, he completely reorganized the place, revised the menu, and organized---and oversaw---one extremely successful Valentine's Day dinner.
It didn't exactly work; when he went back, the kitchen was filthy once again and the chef was still behaving "like a stroppy teenager", as Ramsay put it, with the owner. But the point is: he went back and he checked, and he administered an extremely strongly worded televised bollocking to the backslider.
Where is the Gordon Ramsay of government oversight? Where's the person who knows in advance exactly how to handle disaster relief in the worst case scenarios, what "assets" would be needed, how much they will cost, and where the money must come from, and who can go to the various state and federal offices and ask questions?
We need someone to rip the lid off these various agencies and reveal to those of us whose taxes support them exactly how they tick. We need someone who can identify bad management, sloppy thinking, inefficiency, inattention to detail, poor communication, ineptness, and any other failings that are likely to greatly exacerbate the effects of an act of God or individual and call out the people responsible. And we need someone who can show them how to start going about fixing those problems. The last is what distinguishes unproductive criticism from constructive criticism.
Just as there are some restaurants Ramsay can't fix because the rot has progressed too far, I'm sure that there are problems a Ramsay-style watchdog couldn't solve in one go. But by letting some light into the dusty behind-the-scenes workings of these agencies and by letting Americans see exactly who is in charge would at least force the people who are working for the public be directly accountable to the public. And identifying potential problems in advance would at least give the agencies a short at sorting them out.
Plus the prospect of a Ramsay-style bollocking would keep people on their toes---and even more than the prospect of a bollocking, the prospect of having to answer Ramsay-style questions. "Did you know that you paid $2000 for this hammer? Why didn't you know it? Oh, you did know? Did you know that you can buy this same item at the hardware store for $20? You did? Why did you pay $2000? Oh, it wasn't you? Who was it? Isn't he/she a member of your department? You didn't notice that she was spending 100,000 a month on hardware? Why didn't you know that? Were you not monitoring the budget? Oh, you were? If you were, why didn't you put a stop to it?" And on and on.
Wouldn't that be a kick-ass reality show? Wouldn't it be riveting television? And wouldn't it be what we as taxpayers need----to see which people on the government payroll are doing the real work and which are coasting?
I'd personally feel much more confident in the government if I felt certain that the government was actively working at least part of the time on ensuring an efficient response to disaster.
UPDATE. Watching "Act 2" now---and watching the intensity of CNN reporter Soledad O'Brien as she questions Michael Brown. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. That's what we need---not afterward, but now. Now, while there's time to identify the lapses and fix them.
Why the hell COULDN'T we get buses and food to those people?
This part is really disturbing, horrifying, almost unbearable: I'm looking now at footage of dead bodies strewn all over the city of New Orleans. Before that, the stories of people who were separated for days from their families, sent off to separate cities. How could anyone bear it?
This is an important film. No one should EVER forget.
Comments