Skip to content

New Orleans

Archived

88 replies · 2,197 views

This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.

AgentWood wrote: so...yay, holland?

All that talk about not letting dykes get married...now how do you feel about that? I mean, if dykes had been in place I'm trying to see some humor in this but it's awfully hard.

There was something on Headline News right now about people actually dying in the SuperDome while waiting for whatever fucking relief there is. Why the hell is this happening in 21st-century America? :mad:

Hell, if Al Qaeda or Iraq claimed blame for it, I bet the Army would be down there asap. But because it's "just black and poor people" getting the brunt of this, it's okay in Bush's America. This is bullshit...

0 likes

AgentWood wrote: so...yay, holland?

I don't know. :shrug:

How about yay planning? Meaning...

...if you're planning for building below sea level, don't ignore inconvenient issues like global warming in your planning.

...if your planning tells you it's a bad idea, don't do it anyway just to repay the well-connected developers who bankroll your election campaigns.

And if you're a national leader, don't spend years pretending that global warming doesn't exist, and then appear utterly surprised when it shows up on your doorstep.

0 likes

Taboo # 7 wrote:

AgentWood wrote: so...yay, holland?

There was something on Headline News right now about people actually dying in the SuperDome while waiting for whatever fucking relief there is. Why the hell is this happening in 21st-century America? :mad:...

Why do you think America is a 21st Century nation? The ideology of the American right-- i.e., our national leadership-- is firmly rooted in the 19th Century...

0 likes

bLuE oRdEr wrote:

Taboo # 7 wrote:

AgentWood wrote: so...yay, holland?

There was something on Headline News right now about people actually dying in the SuperDome while waiting for whatever fucking relief there is. Why the hell is this happening in 21st-century America? :mad:...

Why do you think America is a 21st Century nation? The ideology of the American right-- i.e., our national leadership-- is firmly rooted in the 19th Century...

Ha! Shows what you know...more like 18th century!

I say, good man, what make you of the troubles in the Colonies? Shall we let them go, or perhaps crush them under our agrarian nonsense and Enlightenment philosophy....:p

0 likes

bLuE oRdEr wrote:

Taboo # 7 wrote:

AgentWood wrote: so...yay, holland?

There was something on Headline News right now about people actually dying in the SuperDome while waiting for whatever fucking relief there is. Why the hell is this happening in 21st-century America? :mad:...

Why do you think America is a 21st Century nation? The ideology of the American right-- i.e., our national leadership-- is firmly rooted in the 19th Century...

because we're no different than anyone else in the world--from the sudan to italy. we're human, we can starve to death, we can die of disease, we have tragedies, and we make mistakes. we're not invincible and we can crash and burn just like everyone else. this is something americans have a hard time stomaching and our government has no idea how to deal with this reality.

0 likes

Taboo # 7 wrote:

bLuE oRdEr wrote:

Taboo # 7 wrote:

AgentWood wrote: so...yay, holland?

There was something on Headline News right now about people actually dying in the SuperDome while waiting for whatever fucking relief there is. Why the hell is this happening in 21st-century America? :mad:...

Why do you think America is a 21st Century nation? The ideology of the American right-- i.e., our national leadership-- is firmly rooted in the 19th Century...

Ha! Shows what you know...more like 18th century!

I say, good man, what make you of the troubles in the Colonies? Shall we let them go, or perhaps crush them under our agrarian nonsense and Enlightenment philosophy....:p

My good man, I must disagree, what. Our illustrious leaders are clearly not of the 18th century. Enlightenment indeed! No, my good man, our leaders are clearly at the rearguard of the 19th century. Capitalism red in tooth and claw, the earth created 6000 years ago, and all that sort of rot, what.

0 likes

AgentWood wrote:

bLuE oRdEr wrote:

Taboo # 7 wrote:

AgentWood wrote: so...yay, holland?

There was something on Headline News right now about people actually dying in the SuperDome while waiting for whatever fucking relief there is. Why the hell is this happening in 21st-century America? :mad:...

Why do you think America is a 21st Century nation? The ideology of the American right-- i.e., our national leadership-- is firmly rooted in the 19th Century...

because we're no different than anyone else in the world--from the sudan to italy. we're human, we can starve to death, we can die of disease, we have tragedies, and we make mistakes. we're not invincible and we can crash and burn just like everyone else. this is something americans have a hard time stomaching and our government has no idea how to deal with this reality.

The situation is what you'd expect from a 19th century Administration though, isn't it?

0 likes

because we're no different than anyone else in the world--from the sudan to italy. we're human, we can starve to death, we can die of disease, we have tragedies, and we make mistakes. we're not invincible and we can crash and burn just like everyone else. this is something americans have a hard time stomaching and our government has no idea how to deal with this reality.

fookin word up. the reality check is ,that natural disasters dont give a shit about where when or whom. and yes we are all human,i just think its a shame that we dont spend as much time as a race bothering about stuff like this when it happens say in india (as it does)or anywhere else for that matter. we can bitch and squawlk oveer bush n blair but in the end they mean nothing compared to what mother nature can dish out.

0 likes

mike powell wrote: fookin word up. the reality check is ,that natural disasters dont give a shit about where when or whom. and yes we are all human,i just think its a shame that we dont spend as much time as a race bothering about stuff like this when it happens say in india (as it does)or anywhere else for that matter. we can bitch and squawlk oveer bush n blair but in the end they mean nothing compared to what mother nature can dish out.

"Natural disaters don't give a shit about where when or whom." Agreed. Even Americans can die in natural disasters.

But this isn't just a "natural disaster." It's a direct result of Bush Administration policies. In case you missed it the first time:

“A synthesis report,published in April 2004, based on previous studies pinpoints the Southeast U.S. as the most vulnerable to climate change. The report cited the region's heavily populated, low-lying coast, which is susceptible to rising sea levels—a risk that is made worse by more intense, and perhaps more frequent, storms.”

And the "victims" are those who didn't have the financial resources to evacuate. The poor. That's not a "natural disaster," that's piss-poor planning by people who don't give a shit about the poor.

Calling this a "natural disaster" just buys into the propaganda that there was nothing we could have done differently. Calling this a "natural disaster" just buys into the propaganda that there was nothing we could have done to prevent this, and nothing we could have done to be prepared.

Uh huh.

0 likes

bLuE oRdEr wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

bLuE oRdEr wrote:

Taboo # 7 wrote:

AgentWood wrote: so...yay, holland?

There was something on Headline News right now about people actually dying in the SuperDome while waiting for whatever fucking relief there is. Why the hell is this happening in 21st-century America? :mad:...

Why do you think America is a 21st Century nation? The ideology of the American right-- i.e., our national leadership-- is firmly rooted in the 19th Century...

because we're no different than anyone else in the world--from the sudan to italy. we're human, we can starve to death, we can die of disease, we have tragedies, and we make mistakes. we're not invincible and we can crash and burn just like everyone else. this is something americans have a hard time stomaching and our government has no idea how to deal with this reality.

The situation is what you'd expect from a 19th century Administration though, isn't it?

give them a break. remember: they're drafting laws by candlelight up in DC, blue. they're bound to make an unintended error or two considering the dim conditions.

0 likes

AgentWood wrote:

bLuE oRdEr wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

bLuE oRdEr wrote:

Taboo # 7 wrote:

AgentWood wrote: so...yay, holland?

There was something on Headline News right now about people actually dying in the SuperDome while waiting for whatever fucking relief there is. Why the hell is this happening in 21st-century America? :mad:...

Why do you think America is a 21st Century nation? The ideology of the American right-- i.e., our national leadership-- is firmly rooted in the 19th Century...

because we're no different than anyone else in the world--from the sudan to italy. we're human, we can starve to death, we can die of disease, we have tragedies, and we make mistakes. we're not invincible and we can crash and burn just like everyone else. this is something americans have a hard time stomaching and our government has no idea how to deal with this reality.

The situation is what you'd expect from a 19th century Administration though, isn't it?

give them a break. remember: they're drafting laws by candlelight up in DC, blue. they're bound to make an unintended error or two considering the dim conditions.

And don't forget, they're busy calculating the exact date 6000 years ago (or was it 5000 years ago?) that the Earth was created. By hand, because this is the 19th century. That takes time, you know.

0 likes

bLuE oRdEr wrote:

mike powell wrote: fookin word up. the reality check is ,that natural disasters dont give a shit about where when or whom. and yes we are all human,i just think its a shame that we dont spend as much time as a race bothering about stuff like this when it happens say in india (as it does)or anywhere else for that matter. we can bitch and squawlk oveer bush n blair but in the end they mean nothing compared to what mother nature can dish out.

"Natural disaters don't give a shit about where when or whom." Agreed. Even Americans can die in natural disasters.

But this isn't just a "natural disaster." It's a direct result of Bush Administration policies. In case you missed it the first time:

“A synthesis report,published in April 2004, based on previous studies pinpoints the Southeast U.S. as the most vulnerable to climate change. The report cited the region's heavily populated, low-lying coast, which is susceptible to rising sea levels—a risk that is made worse by more intense, and perhaps more frequent, storms.”

And the "victims" are those who didn't have the financial resources to evacuate. The poor. That's not a "natural disaster," that's piss-poor planning by people who don't give a shit about the poor.

Calling this a "natural disaster" just buys into the propaganda that there was nothing we could have done differently. Calling this a "natural disaster" just buys into the propaganda that there was nothing we could have done to prevent this, and nothing we could have done to be prepared.

Uh huh.

you've got to meet christie in portland, blue. she just sent me this link from:

Spiegel Online

0 likes

AgentWood wrote:

404 error wrote: Is there any information anywhere on the web about which parts of NO (er...New Orleans, not New Order) are under water and by how much? I know some people in the western suburbs, they've left town and don't know what they will be coming back to. Information seems very hard to come by, but surely there must be detailed satellite pictures of the area?

there are satellite images on...i think it was bbc.co.uk. almost all of the streets are now rivers. about 80% of the city is underwater, and the parts that aren't are becoming increasingly unmanageable as rescue workers have been fired upon. new orleans is essentially in a state of anarchy as people have begun brandishing weapons at the superdome and news reporters are being told to pull out of the city for their own safety.

As far as I can tell from the flood maps I've seen, its hard to say for sure about my friends place, but the probability is its completely submerged. They left thinking they'd be back in a day, with just the clothes they stood up in. Jeez. Given that FEMA picked a New Orleans hurricane/flood as one of the three most likely disasters to strike the US (along with a terror attack on NYC, and an SF earthquake), it does seem it was maybe a false economy not to strenghten the levees. Maybe now is the time for the US (and everyone else come to that) to look around and check if there's any other head-in-the-sand behaviour going on?

0 likes

404 error wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

404 error wrote: Is there any information anywhere on the web about which parts of NO (er...New Orleans, not New Order) are under water and by how much? I know some people in the western suburbs, they've left town and don't know what they will be coming back to. Information seems very hard to come by, but surely there must be detailed satellite pictures of the area?

there are satellite images on...i think it was bbc.co.uk. almost all of the streets are now rivers. about 80% of the city is underwater, and the parts that aren't are becoming increasingly unmanageable as rescue workers have been fired upon. new orleans is essentially in a state of anarchy as people have begun brandishing weapons at the superdome and news reporters are being told to pull out of the city for their own safety.

As far as I can tell from the flood maps I've seen, its hard to say for sure about my friends place, but the probability is its completely submerged. They left thinking they'd be back in a day, with just the clothes they stood up in. Jeez. Given that FEMA picked a New Orleans hurricane/flood as one of the three most likely disasters to strike the US (along with a terror attack on NYC, and an SF earthquake), it does seem it was maybe a false economy not to strenghten the levees. Maybe now is the time for the US (and everyone else come to that) to look around and check if there's any other head-in-the-sand behaviour going on?

the french quarter and areas around the superdome are above water, but that hardly matters at this point. here's the open letter to the president from sunday's edition of the new orleans times-picayune. i got this from CNN, as visiting the times-picayune site is difficult, because they're printing from NOLA in baton rouge right now:

An open letter to the President Dear Mr. President:

We heard you loud and clear Friday when you visited our devastated city and the Gulf Coast and said, "What is not working, we're going to make it right."

Please forgive us if we wait to see proof of your promise before believing you. But we have good reason for our skepticism.

Bienville built New Orleans where he built it for one main reason: It's accessible. The city between the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain was easy to reach in 1718.

How much easier it is to access in 2005 now that there are interstates and bridges, airports and helipads, cruise ships, barges, buses and diesel-powered trucks.

Despite the city's multiple points of entry, our nation's bureaucrats spent days after last week's hurricane wringing their hands, lamenting the fact that they could neither rescue the city's stranded victims nor bring them food, water and medical supplies.

Meanwhile there were journalists, including some who work for The Times-Picayune, going in and out of the city via the Crescent City Connection. On Thursday morning, that crew saw a caravan of 13 Wal-Mart tractor trailers headed into town to bring food, water and supplies to a dying city.

Television reporters were doing live reports from downtown New Orleans streets. Harry Connick Jr. brought in some aid Thursday, and his efforts were the focus of a "Today" show story Friday morning.

Yet, the people trained to protect our nation, the people whose job it is to quickly bring in aid were absent. Those who should have been deploying troops were singing a sad song about how our city was impossible to reach.

We're angry, Mr. President, and we'll be angry long after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing. Many who could have been were not. That's to the government's shame.

Mayor Ray Nagin did the right thing Sunday when he allowed those with no other alternative to seek shelter from the storm inside the Louisiana Superdome. We still don't know what the death toll is, but one thing is certain: Had the Superdome not been opened, the city's death toll would have been higher. The toll may even have been exponentially higher.

It was clear to us by late morning Monday that many people inside the Superdome would not be returning home. It should have been clear to our government, Mr. President. So why weren't they evacuated out of the city immediately? We learned seven years ago, when Hurricane Georges threatened, that the Dome isn't suitable as a long-term shelter. So what did state and national officials think would happen to tens of thousands of people trapped inside with no air conditioning, overflowing toilets and dwindling amounts of food, water and other essentials?

State Rep. Karen Carter was right Friday when she said the city didn't have but two urgent needs: "Buses! And gas!" Every official at the Federal Emergency Management Agency should be fired, Director Michael Brown especially.

In a nationally televised interview Thursday night, he said his agency hadn't known until that day that thousands of storm victims were stranded at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center. He gave another nationally televised interview the next morning and said, "We've provided food to the people at the Convention Center so that they've gotten at least one, if not two meals, every single day."

Lies don't get more bald-faced than that, Mr. President.

Yet, when you met with Mr. Brown Friday morning, you told him, "You're doing a heck of a job."

That's unbelievable.

There were thousands of people at the Convention Center because the riverfront is high ground. The fact that so many people had reached there on foot is proof that rescue vehicles could have gotten there, too.

We, who are from New Orleans, are no less American than those who live on the Great Plains or along the Atlantic Seaboard. We're no less important than those from the Pacific Northwest or Appalachia. Our people deserved to be rescued.

No expense should have been spared. No excuses should have been voiced. Especially not one as preposterous as the claim that New Orleans couldn't be reached.

Mr. President, we sincerely hope you fulfill your promise to make our beloved communities work right once again.

When you do, we will be the first to applaud.

0 likes

The Media

0 likes

bLuE oRdEr wrote: The Media

that's what i've noticed, as well. the reporters in the field have been very angry this past week. watching anderson cooper, son of gloria vanderbilt, bitch-slap sen. landreau (i think it was) was quite a sight.

0 likes

bLuE oRdEr wrote:

mike powell wrote: fookin word up. the reality check is ,that natural disasters dont give a shit about where when or whom. and yes we are all human,i just think its a shame that we dont spend as much time as a race bothering about stuff like this when it happens say in india (as it does)or anywhere else for that matter. we can bitch and squawlk oveer bush n blair but in the end they mean nothing compared to what mother nature can dish out.

"Natural disaters don't give a shit about where when or whom." Agreed. Even Americans can die in natural disasters.

But this isn't just a "natural disaster." It's a direct result of Bush Administration policies. In case you missed it the first time:

“A synthesis report,published in April 2004, based on previous studies pinpoints the Southeast U.S. as the most vulnerable to climate change. The report cited the region's heavily populated, low-lying coast, which is susceptible to rising sea levels—a risk that is made worse by more intense, and perhaps more frequent, storms.”

And the "victims" are those who didn't have the financial resources to evacuate. The poor. That's not a "natural disaster," that's piss-poor planning by people who don't give a shit about the poor.

Calling this a "natural disaster" just buys into the propaganda that there was nothing we could have done differently. Calling this a "natural disaster" just buys into the propaganda that there was nothing we could have done to prevent this, and nothing we could have done to be prepared.

Uh huh.

Actually, the seeds of this disaster were planted when algore burned over 450,000 lbs. of jet fuel flying to Kyoto.......

0 likes

.............and in case you missed this, from Mr. Order's favorite source.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/national/30cycle.html

THE OUTLOOK Storms Vary With Cycles, Experts Say

By KENNETH CHANG Published: August 30, 2005 Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.

But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught "is very much natural," said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.

From 1970 to 1994, the Atlantic was relatively quiet, with no more than three major hurricanes in any year and none at all in three of those years. Cooler water in the North Atlantic strengthened wind shear, which tends to tear storms apart before they turn into hurricanes.

In 1995, hurricane patterns reverted to the active mode of the 1950's and 60's. From 1995 to 2003, 32 major hurricanes, with sustained winds of 111 miles per hour or greater, stormed across the Atlantic. It was chance, Dr. Gray said, that only three of them struck the United States at full strength.

Historically, the rate has been 1 in 3.

Then last year, three major hurricanes, half of the six that formed during the season, hit the United States. A fourth, Frances, weakened before striking Florida.

"We were very lucky in that eight-year period, and the luck just ran out," Dr. Gray said.

Global warming may eventually intensify hurricanes somewhat, though different climate models disagree.

In an article this month in the journal Nature, Kerry A. Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote that global warming might have already had some effect. The total power dissipated by tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic and North Pacific increased 70 to 80 percent in the last 30 years, he wrote.

But even that seemingly large jump is not what has been pushing the hurricanes of the last two years, Dr. Emanuel said, adding, "What we see in the Atlantic is mostly the natural swing."

0 likes

So we still have time, then. I'm betting W dithers it away. Any takers?

0 likes

Can you believe that wanker Bush!?

'I'm, er, i'm, -ahem-, erm ordering this, er, inquiry because, er, i'll tell you why... we need to understand the relationships between blah... blah... and because we need to be ready, it's er... an unstable world and there's WMD to consider...'

a/ This tosser can't string more than four words together in a row.

b/ Why the fuck is he obsessing over WMD when that is not the issue here.

c/ Isn't a good reason to do the inquiry because around 10,000 PEOPLE DIED!? HE DOESN'T MENTION THE DEATHS AS A REASON ONCE!

George Bush is a nauseating bag of toss and I hope he hurries up and fucks off out of office.

0 likes

Tex wrote: .............and in case you missed this, from Mr. Order's favorite source.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/national/30cycle.html

THE OUTLOOK Storms Vary With Cycles, Experts Say

By KENNETH CHANG Published: August 30, 2005 Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.

But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught "is very much natural," said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.

From 1970 to 1994, the Atlantic was relatively quiet, with no more than three major hurricanes in any year and none at all in three of those years. Cooler water in the North Atlantic strengthened wind shear, which tends to tear storms apart before they turn into hurricanes.

In 1995, hurricane patterns reverted to the active mode of the 1950's and 60's. From 1995 to 2003, 32 major hurricanes, with sustained winds of 111 miles per hour or greater, stormed across the Atlantic. It was chance, Dr. Gray said, that only three of them struck the United States at full strength.

Historically, the rate has been 1 in 3.

Then last year, three major hurricanes, half of the six that formed during the season, hit the United States. A fourth, Frances, weakened before striking Florida.

"We were very lucky in that eight-year period, and the luck just ran out," Dr. Gray said.

Global warming may eventually intensify hurricanes somewhat, though different climate models disagree.

In an article this month in the journal Nature, Kerry A. Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote that global warming might have already had some effect. The total power dissipated by tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic and North Pacific increased 70 to 80 percent in the last 30 years, he wrote.

But even that seemingly large jump is not what has been pushing the hurricanes of the last two years, Dr. Emanuel said, adding, "What we see in the Atlantic is mostly the natural swing."

As you correctly mention a recent paper in Nature did suggest an increase in hurricane activity might be connected to global warming, and so we may see more disasters like this in future. But obviously one can't blame any specific hurricane on GW (or even on GWB). Seems to me the real issue in this case is not global warming but the lack of flood protection for NO and the unbelievably cack-handed response to the disaster. If one wants to bash Bush (and such a desire is surely a sign of common sense and decency) one must surely be careful to select the correct stick.

Myself, I'm hoping someone is keeping an eye on the Thames Barrier and checking that it's still up to the job. I guess the good thing about that is that if it fails the House of Commons will be one of the first things to go, which may concentrate the politicians minds.

0 likes

Tex doesn't want to bash Bush. Tex luurrves Bush. He's responding to my hypothesis that global warming played a hand in this disaster.

I still think global warming is something we need to start taking seriously. If it wasn't a factor in this disaster, it's still predicted to be a factor in future disasters. If we escaped the consequences of global warming this time, we should count ourselves fortunate, and begin now to reverse the damage we're causing to our amosphere. Waiting until we're in a global warming induced emergency is the equivalent of doing nothing about flood control in New Orleans when we knew it was only a matter of time.

Although I've excoriated Bush for cutting funding for critical levee work in New Orleans, I'm actually against levees as a means of flood control. They are a poor solution to the problem. The coastline that protects New Orleans from the full brunt of a hurricane has been eaten away for years because of the levees. A proper flood control system would preserve the coastline and marshes-- flood control is an ecological service that these areas provide to society, but they've been destroyed by a combination of levees and wetlands development. The levees are necessary to protect development in the floodplains. On the other hand, not strengthening the levees resulted in catastrophic loss of life. It seems to me that when the floodplain is already develeoped, therefore, protecting lives in the developed floodplain makes repairs to the levees essential. That's why I blamed Bush for his role in this disaster. He knew there was a disaster in the making (He said nobody could have foreseen a break in the levees, but former Louisiana Senator John Breaux-- a Bush ally-- basically called him a liar when he said that he talked with Bush about the possibility of the levees breaking last year) and he did nothing about it. I think House Speaker Hastert is actually on the right track-- now that New Orleans is destroyed, we need to think about how we rebuild. Maybe certain areas of the floodplain in New Orleans shouldn't be rebuilt-- use a combination of natural and man-made flood protection to rebuild smarter. I don't know exactly what needs to be built, but I think Hastert is right.

Whatever we do in New Orleans, we need to start planning now for the next disaster-- planning for the effects of global warming, planning for rebuilding the coastline, planning for restoring and recreating the wetlands, planning for man-made flood control projects that will withstand the effects of the hurricanes that we know are coming, planning for a City that is built smarter.

The Real Costs of a Culture of Greed

The American Venice?

0 likes

bLuE oRdEr wrote: Tex doesn't want to bash Bush. Tex luurrves Bush. He's responding to my hypothesis that global warming played a hand in this disaster.

I still think global warming is something we need to start taking seriously. If it wasn't a factor in this disaster, it's still predicted to be a factor in future disasters. If we escaped the consequences of global warming this time, we should count ourselves fortunate, and begin now to reverse the damage we're causing to our amosphere. Waiting until we're in a global warming induced emergency is the equivalent of doing nothing about flood control in New Orleans when we knew it was only a matter of time.

Although I've excoriated Bush for cutting funding for critical levee work in New Orleans, I'm actually against levees as a means of flood control. They are a poor solution to the problem. The coastline that protects New Orleans from the full brunt of a hurricane has been eaten away for years because of the levees. A proper flood control system would preserve the coastline and marshes-- flood control is an ecological service that these areas provide to society, but they've been destroyed by a combination of levees and wetlands development. The levees are necessary to protect development in the floodplains. On the other hand, not strengthening the levees resulted in catastrophic loss of life. It seems to me that when the floodplain is already develeoped, therefore, protecting lives in the developed floodplain makes repairs to the levees essential. That's why I blamed Bush for his role in this disaster. He knew there was a disaster in the making (He said nobody could have foreseen a break in the levees, but former Louisiana Senator John Breaux-- a Bush ally-- basically called him a liar when he said that he talked with Bush about the possibility of the levees breaking last year) and he did nothing about it. I think House Speaker Hastert is actually on the right track-- now that New Orleans is destroyed, we need to think about how we rebuild. Maybe certain areas of the floodplain in New Orleans shouldn't be rebuilt-- use a combination of natural and man-made flood protection to rebuild smarter. I don't know exactly what needs to be built, but I think Hastert is right.

Whatever we do in New Orleans, we need to start planning now for the next disaster-- planning for the effects of global warming, planning for rebuilding the coastline, planning for restoring and recreating the wetlands, planning for man-made flood control projects that will withstand the effects of the hurricanes that we know are coming, planning for a City that is built smarter.

The Real Costs of a Culture of Greed

The American Venice?

Your reasoning and examples are correct. However, they are oh so selective.

What did 40+ years worth Democrat control at the local, state and federal level get the State of Louisiana? We're looking at it.

0 likes

Any politician from any party who had a hand in gambling that there would be no category 4 hurricane in New Orleans-- and therefore cut funding-- should be held accountable. Up to and including Bush, because he gambled and it happened on his watch.

Then there's the "relief effort"...

The Katrina Timeline

Katrina Chronology

0 likes

Tex wrote: Actually, the seeds of this disaster were planted when algore burned over 450,000 lbs. of jet fuel flying to Kyoto.......

Gore Airlifts Victims Out Of New Orleans

Real shame about Gore burning all that jet fuel...

0 likes

Noblesse Oblige?

0 likes

You're leaving NewOrderOnline

This link goes to an external website we don't operate, which has its own privacy policy and terms.

Destination:
Continue ↗