This is just mere speculation on my part....maybe. I am completely aware of the disastrous situation that is going on as I write this: the fires are spreading. And among 13 fires barely 3 are contained and firefighters have yet to get control over the other many blazing monsters that ravage the land of California. This has officially been declared a "state of emergency" which opens the door for federal aid, including FEMA which will pay up to 5 million dollars or more if necessary. Personally I just find it amazing that within 3 days of these fires starting and spreading that not only has the governor been to and remained at the site; but the president has been very active in the assistance and attention given to the fires. One of the first areas to catch fire was the very wealthy neighborhood of Malibu, California. Burning in seven counties, the wildfires have destroyed about 1,500 homes and caused more than a half-million people to evacuate since the first fire.
The reason I am amazed is because what is now to be considered the second largest natural disaster for the US, falling second to the Wildfires, did not get such a quick and efficient response from the government. I am not in any way down-playing the danger or the seriousness of this situation but there have been no lives lost here. I am just posing the question(s): What is the difference here? Why was the response to those here in California so quickly granted, while the Gulf Coast is still in shambles? I think that the Bush administration may be trying to make-up for Katrina by paying extra-special attention to the wildfires. As I previously stated, they do need the help, but the comparison of the two tragedies can only leave one to wonder...what's the big picture?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment