Katrina: Why it was (and still is) different

This week is the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina’s devastation of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. I have just finished watching Spike Lee’s HBO documentary on the subject: “When the Levees Broke.”

If I were a movie reviewer, I would have to say that the film is at times repetitive and too drawn out. It could have benefited from tighter editing. I am certain that at least an hour could have been removed from the film without reducing its effectiveness.

On the other hand, the film does a superb job of hammering home two main points: (1) the almost unbelievable enormity of the damage to New Orleans and (2) the almost unbelievable callousness and incompetence of almost every level of government, especially the Bush administration, in dealing with the tragedy.

While watching the film, one thought in particular kept bubbling up in my mind: How Katrina is different than almost every other disaster that has preceded it. The thoughts started when I watched some of the residents describe the impact on their lives of losing their home.

An initial reaction was to say, “Yes, this is terrible, but it is hardly unique. Hundreds of people lose their homes every day, due to fire or other natural and man-made causes.”

But I quickly realized that Katrina was unique.

I thought back to an incident in my neighborhood several years ago. A family across the street from where I lived lost their home, due to an electrical fire that quickly grew out of control, started when no one was home. By the time the fire department arrived, it was too late. The house was burned to the ground. My neighbors came home to utter devastation. They literally had nothing left: All of their clothes, all of their photos, all of their possessions they had spent a life time collecting, all of it was gone. Their two young daughters also lost everything they could call their own.

But…and it’s a big but…they still had each other. No lives had been lost. Even their dog (who had been in the house at the time) survived. And given their own financial resources and insurance coverage, they actually managed to rebuild an identical looking house on the same property. They moved into it within a year of the fire! While waiting for the rebuild to be completed, the family rented an apartment for the year. Their kids attended their same familiar school. Their church remained a source of comfort andf support, as did all their friends. And the entire neighborhood was there to welcome them back with a big party when they finally returned.

Compare that to New Orleans and Katrina:

Here lives were lost. And, in numerous instances, people did not learn that a relative had died until months after the storm – because recovery workers were unwilling or unable to search the house. Even if everyone in a family survived, members were often separated and sent to distant locations – to Texas, Utah and beyond. In many cases, it took months for parents and children to discover where everyone wound up and reunite. Most of these families have still not returned to New Orleans.

And of course, the damage was not limited to just a house or even just a couple of homes nearby. Almost the entire city was destroyed. The school where your kids went: gone. The church you attended: gone. The neighborhood where you lived: gone. The stores where you shopped: gone. No electricity or basic plumbing restored even as of today in some cases.

In many neighborhoods, the wreckage of the houses remain on their property – with no confirmed date as to when it will be removed. For many residents, rebuilding remains a dream that will never be realized. Especially with insurance companies often refusing to pay for damages — claiming that it was a flood, an uncovered event, that was the cause of the damage.

Katrina was different. A year later, it still is. It will be years before New Orleans moves past this disaster. It may never completely do so. New Orleans will remain on the map. But the city itself may never be restored to its former self.

Hooray for Tom Cruise!

So I see that Tom Cruise has landed on his feet with a new two-year deal forged with Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder.

To which I say: Fabulous. I am so glad.

First, let me say that my view of Tom Cruise’s movie career is something of a paradox.

On the one hand, I have never thought of him as a great actor and I certainly don’t expect him to ever win an Academy Award.

On the other hand, many of the pictures he has starred in are among my favorites (including Rain Man, Jerry Maguire, A Few Good Men, Born on the Fourth of July, The Color of Money, and Mission Impossible, to name just some!). I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he is in all these films. He is a big part of what made them great.

So I look forward to seeing him in yet more great movies in the years ahead. Which is also why I continue to be amazed and dismayed at the extent to which Cruise’s off-screen behavior has apparently affected the ticket sales of his movies. Frankly, unless he has done something illegal or grossly immoral, I could care less.

As far as I can tell, the problems with Tom center on three main incidents: (1) his couch-jumping on Oprah; (2) his beliefs in Scientology and (3) his critical remarks about taking anti-depressants for post-partum depression.

To which I reply in turn:

(1) It was a bit weird to watch but, come on, it was just silliness. What does it matter whether he climbs a couch or not?

(2) Scientology is about on the same level as a belief in little green men on Mars. So I think Tom must be ignorant, stupid, or lying when he says he believes it. But many or even most movie stars can be stupid or ignorant on occasion. So what’s the big deal here?

(3) I believe the statement was wrong and offensive. I think less of Tom as a person as a result. But it still won’t affect whether or not I see his movies — unless I were to decide to boycott his films as a form of protest against his remarks (which I am not even contemplating doing).

Personally, I think the public’s interest in and over-reaction to Tom’s behavior is much weirder than anything Tom has done. So I am glad that, despite the public response and Paramount’s decision to dump him, he is going to be just fine.

Of course, with his money, even if he never earned another penny from his films for the rest of his life, he would still have millions more than I (or almost anyone else in the world) will ever see. So it’s hard to feel sorry for him no matter what happens.

Losing it over Lost!

I love Lost. The TV series.

It is currently my favorite series on TV. And I look forward to the next season as much as anyone.

But the producers of the show seem on a mission to destroy it with product tie-in overkill.

The latest example are the Lost jigsaw puzzles.

“What’s wrong with this?” you may ask. What’s wrong is what is stated on the box covers: “Spoiler warning: Secrets are revealed.”

This can only mean one of two things, both of them bad:

• No secrets (at least none of any consequence) are really revealed. So, even if you don’t get the puzzles, you won’t be missing anything. In other words, the box cover is essentially a lie.

• Secrets of consequence do get revealed. This is the greater of the two evils! This means you now need to buy games, and possibly DVDs, books, and other paraphernalia, just to keep up with what is happening on the show itself (which is already a bit difficult to follow and which I am already a bit miffed over how long it takes them to reveal any significant secrets). If this is the case, I am about ready to give up on the show. I don’t have enough time nor enough interest in spending my money to reward this crass commercialism and exploitation of the show’s fans.

Yes, others have done it before. Recall the Matrix movies, where the animated Animatrix filled in plot details not covered in the movies. And, of course, Star Wars has turned this concept into a full-fledged industry.

But it seems particularly annoying in the case of Lost, where a big appeal of the show depends precisely on its secrets. To require spending money on a bunch of tie-in merchandise, in order to discover what these secrets are, is just an insult perpetrated by the producers of the show. Shame on them.

Is there too much democracy on the Web?

According to this article in the San Francisco Chronicle, in the immediate aftermath of the latest airline terrorist threat, bloggers on both the left and ride side of the fence went more than a bit overboard. Comments were as extreme as claiming the entire incident was a right wing hoax designed to keep Republicans in power.

You know, looking at all these blogs, I can’t help but wonder: maybe there is too much democracy on the Web. I know, you may be asking: “How can there be such a thing as too much democracy?”

And isn’t it a bit ironic that I am criticizing blog writing in a blog I am writing? Yes it is.

And far be it from me to cast a big net over blogs. I have made a living in recent years by creating what is essentially a blog (not this one!) and writing for others. And I have always touted that one of the greatest strengths of the Web is the level playing field it presents to all comers. It’s how a single user’s startup blog with no capital can wind up having as much influence and readership as, say, the New York Times. The currency on the Web is eyeballs, not how much money you have. And the opportunity to get eyeballs is still pretty open. If you have something interesting and valuable to say, you will get heard.

It has injected a new energy into our political landscape, among other landscapes, leading to “netroots” campaigns that rival the older grassroots ones.

But there is a problem. And it’s a big one. There is no editorial oversight for blogs. A blogger can write whatever is currently in their brain with no filter between their neurons and their Web output. When this gets amplified by thousands of bloggers doing it at the same time, the result can be a cacophony so loud and confusing that it becomes impossible to separate fact (or even supported opinion) from wild speculation or outright fraud.

Yes, fraud happens even at respected institutions such as the New York Times (remember Jayson Blair?). But that’s part of my point. A person like Blair makes big news precisely because it is such an unusual case and because it shows weaknesses in the Times editorial policy, weaknesses that the Times seeks to correct.

At least the Times has an editorial policy – unlike blogs. Where are the fact checkers and technical editors for blogs? Non-existent.

People often claim that blogs help people learn what is really going on – because they publish news that the traditional media refuse to cover. True enough. But with the increasing number of people depending on the Web for their news, I also wonder if the proliferation of blogs is making it ever more difficult to know what is really going on – because separating honest news and opinion from a background noise of “craziness,” for lack of a better word, is getting harder and harder to do.