With body recovery teams in New Orleans finding far fewer than the expected 10,000 to 25,000 dead, despite the flooding of 80 percent of the city, it is time to ask: What went right?

Largely invisible to the media's radar, a broad-based rescue effort by federal, state and local first responders pulled 25,000 to 50,000 people from harm's way in floodwaters in the city. Ironically, FEMA's role, for good or ill, was essentially non-existent, as was the Governor's and the Mayor's. An ad-hoc distributed network responded on its own. Big Government didn't work. Odds and ends of little government did.

. . .

Urban also notes one explanation why the rescue operation flew below the radar of the media: Individual federal and state units were not coordinating their efforts overall. There was no central clearing house for information on rescue efforts. What looked like a hurricane relief breakdown was in fact a press release breakdown.

Too many of the hysterical pronouncements of ill-informed officials were reported as gospel truth — and then forgotten — in 24-hour bursts. So "25,000 body bags!" and "10,000 dead" beneath the muck of a submerged city were quietly superseded by the matter-of-fact news reports that the airport would open shortly.

Now we are also told that Mardi Gras may be back on schedule. How could such radical improvement happen at ground zero in a city of corpses that supposedly would not recover for decades?

UPDATE: This from MoveOn.org:

Hurricane Katrina has presented a defining moment for President Bush. So far, it's defined him as indecisive, uninterested in poverty and critically unprepared. Last night's nationally televised address was an attempt by the White House to mark a turning point.

But President Bush failed to deeply address either of the core vulnerabilities Katrina exposed—the federal government's inability to respond to disaster, and the poverty and racism that still remains in America. With the media jury out on the speech, we can help draw focus to Bush's failure to deliver on his core promise—to protect America from disaster.

Our ad team worked overnight, preparing a rapid-response TV ad we want to get on the air as soon as possible, to help shape this historic moment. If we can raise $250,000 today, we can do it. Can you contribute?

https://political.moveon.org/donate/nosafertvad.html?id=6003-396431-YXHSMp_3e1wfdhHYfCq9PA&t=4

Even a small contribution will get the ad running if we all chip in. While the money we've all contributed for relief and recovery is critically important, we also need to fight to make sure our government does its job because government efforts will outstrip private efforts by a magnitude of hundreds. Advocacy is as important as charity at this time in our nation's history.

As Republican 9/11 Commission chair Thomas Kean said Thursday, "What makes you mad is that it's the same things we saw on 9/11. Whoever is responsible for acting in these places hasn't acted. Are they going to do it now? What else has to happen for people to act?"1

The ad, titled "No Safer," draws a contrast between the promises made and the reality today—explaining that despite all the money, reports and restructuring, America isn't any more prepared for a disaster now than it was four years ago, and President Bush doesn't have a plan to make us safe.

Since September 11th, we have been told repeatedly by the president that America is safer. That message—that he would protect America—is the central reason why he won re-election. Those claims turned out to be false.

What are these people, Howard Hughes' mother? You are not safe! For God's sake, people, grow a frickin' spine!

I am not interested in being "safe". Life isn't "safe". This is a world of bags of sentient meat fending off hostile physics and biology. We pilot multi-ton steel tanks down asphalt runways at 80 miles an hour. We eat food we didn't cook and sterilize ourselves. We get cancer and die from taking too many breaths or from swallowing tiny bits of saliva continuously over sixty years. "Safe"? Whatever happened to rugged individualism? Whence the frontier spirit? I just got back from three weeks in Alaska among people who have to carry shotguns and axes on a daily basis to fend off bears on the way back to their cabins, even if they've got Lexuses parked in the garages. How would they react to you telling them they're not "safe" from a hurricane or a terrorist attack? They'd laugh you out of town if you're lucky.

Look: if you want to be safe, you avoid high-risk areas and high-risk activities. Don't jump out of planes. Don't climb El Capitan. Don't ride your bike home from work once it starts getting dark in the evenings. Don't build a house below sea level or on the San Andreas Fault or in grizzly country. Don't go to the Super Bowl or the Times Square New Years Eve party when terrorists brag about having anthrax bombs. But doesn't it shame you a little bit, to see all the millions of people out there brave enough to do all those things and put on a happy face while doing it?

Yeesh. MoveOn.org is going to end up insulting even its fans at this rate.

(Oh, and "racism"? Blow it out your ear.)

UPDATE: Okay, I did like Clinton. For God's sake, what happened to all that admirable apolitical support and solidarity he'd shown until now? This is a very disappointing development.