I just finished reading the paper "The Aftermath of Katrina," which tells of the events of the hurricane Katrina disaster of 2005. At first I was a little confused by all the references of agencies and the many parties involved in the efforts to solve the issue. After probably the third page, though, things were clear.
I agree with the author's statement that this natural disaster could have been handled more efficiently. That it took so long and cost so much makes little to no sense. The author states clearly that FEMA was too slow in its response, were short staffed, and could not properly assess the problem. These seem like pretty lame excuses. Also, Federal Government got involved and probably slowed the process even more.
I cannot form an opinion on the author's claim that the government responded to Mississippi's needs more quickly due to rase and class. I would need more information to support it.
In all, I agree with much of what the author says in his paper, but at the same time, I would add that sometimes, having the government involved only makes the problem worse.
Again, consider craft when responding to this paper-what did this student do that pulled you into her work? How did she present facts, quotes, opinion? Were there any moments that took you out of the paper, or felt out of place? What about this paper would you like to emulate or avoid in your own writing?
ReplyDelete