9 Weeks to Pump Out New Orleans?

Cr0w T. Trollbot asks: "It looks like New Orleans is going through something very close to the worst case scenario right now. This somewhat prescient study, written well before the hurricane, describes some of the challenges (engineering and otherwise) facing New Orleans. 'In this hypothetical storm scenario, it is estimated that it would take nine weeks to pump the water out of the city, and only then could assessments begin to determine what buildings were habitable or salvageable. Sewer, water, and the extensive forced drainage pumping systems would be damaged. National authorities would be scrambling to build tent cities to house the hundreds of thousands of refugees unable to return to their homes and without other relocation options.' The hypothetical is looking awful close to reality right now. What can be done about draining and rebuilding New Orleans in light of the massive flooding, and what can be done to prevent and/or lessen such disasters in the future?"

Comments

Water City

[fembots]

I know this sounds crazy, but given its bowl shape terrain, instead of pumping out the water and rebuild, why don't they rebuild over the water?

Otherwise, try asking Dutch how they have been living with large parts of Netherlands below sea level.

Re:Water City

[FireballX301]

New Orleans has been living the way the Dutch have, through a system of pumps and levees.

The Dutch don't get hurricanes.

A couple of factors against simply rebuilding over the water are excessive cost and safety issues, historical purposes, and once the water drains away everything will be on stilts, since the sea level there fluctuates depending on the outflow of the Mississippi and the tides.

And the mosquitoes. Mosquitoes suck.

Re:Water City

[ben_white]

What makes more sense, is what was done in Gavelston after it was wiped off the face of the map in 1900 by a hurricane. They dredged the surrounding inland waterways and raised the entire island by some 17 feet. In areas of New Orleans that require existing structures be razed could have this done.

cheers, ben

Re:Water City

[Kelson]

The Dutch have the advantage of being on the northwest coast of a continent in the northern hemisphere, where hurricanes move from southeast to northwest. While hurricanes do sometimes turn northward (remember the one last year that ended up near Iceland?), the Netherlands generally don't have to deal with storms of this ferocity.

Re:Water City

[Freexe]

The wall around the Netherlands is longer than the Great Wall of China and is thought to have cost 1.5 trillon dollers to build.

(Source: The Guardian Newspaper, Monday 29th August)

Re:Water City

[quark101]

The reason that they can't just build over the water is a more complicated than you make it seem. First, completely building over everything would cost significatnly more in both time and money than just pumping out the city. Secondly, If you just build over the water, then you will have a city built upon an inherintly unstable foundation i.e. A large cavern underground. Would you want to be in an office building that is built over a city sized hole in the ground? Finally, I think that many of the people in the city itself would highly object, simply because of all the history that would be destroyed by doing that to the city.

As for the Dutch, they also build levees and dikes, but they have a little bit more experience with this problem than does New Orleans. And yes, the Dutch have been flooded multiple times in the past, many times from big storms, just like this one.

Re:Water City

[apoc.famine]

If they don't want to rebuild *above* sea level, they can just rename it Atlantis and sell tours.

Re:Water City

[HairyCanary]

Not a bad idea. Looks like a fair amount is going to get rebuilt, so it does seem like an opportunity to make it safer. Although there would be some interesting challenges dealing with the existing below-ground infrastructure.

Another thought I had is rebuilding the new buildings so that the first floors are parking only, designed specifically to take flooding without major damage. Also, no more building houses below see level, put them somewhere else. Some of this will undoubtedly be self-correcting, as the insurance companies are probably going to up their premiums significantly for anyone who insists on rebuilding in the area.

Re:Water City

[0olong]

As a Dutchie I think part of New Orleans' problem lies in still using pomps from 1928. I also recommend building (higher) dikes. It's not rocket science really...

Re:Water City

[jcr]

The Dutch don't get hurricanes.

Not hurricanes, but North Atlantic storms can still be pretty intense. There was a catastrophic failure of the dykes back in the early 1900's, IIRC.

-jcr

Re:Water City

[Oculus Habent]

That's sub-section 1 of the larger plan: Throw Money At It.

Re:Water City

[jcr]

Also, no more building houses below see level, put them somewhere else.

Umm.. About 80% of New Orleans is below sea level, apparently.

-jcr

Re:Water City

[DiveX]

Why not rebuild over the water? Well, it has been tried before.

"When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get."

King of Swamp Castle

Re:Water City

[Anonymous Coward]

But the Dutch have had way more fatalities due to flooding:
from Wikipedia:

In years past, the Dutch coastline has changed considerably due to human intervention and natural disasters. Most notable in terms of land loss are the 1134 storm, which created the archipelago of Zeeland in the southwest, and the 1287 storm, which killed 50,000 people and created the Zuyderzee (now dammed in and renamed the IJsselmeer - see below) in the northwest, giving Amsterdam direct access to the sea. The St. Elisabeth flood of 1421 and the mismanagement in its aftermath destroyed a newly reclaimed polder, replacing it with the 72 km Biesbosch tidal floodplains in the southcentre. The most recent parts of Zeeland were flooded during the North Sea Flood of 1953 and 1,836 people were killed, after which the Delta Plan was executed.

Here is a map of Netherlands showing the areas under sea level:

Re:Water City

[thrillseeker]

Also, no more building houses below see level, put them somewhere else.

Umm.. About 80% of New Orleans is below sea level, apparently.

That's the point.

Re:Water City

[Waffle Iron]

Even more importantly, they let Galveston become a cute little tourist town, and they moved all the important stuff like the seaport inland to Houston. (Before the storm, Galveston had been one of the most important cities in Texas.) That makes things go much more smoothly when they have to completely empty Galveston Island every few years due to a Hurricane warning.

IMO, they ought to do the same here. Build ultra-stout levees around (or raise by 25 feet) the French Quarter and a few other attractions, and rebuild the rest of the city farther inland.

Re:Water City

[Bi()hazard]

The only way to deal with this problem on a long term basis, other than giving up the city, is to create a system that can't be knocked out by hurricanes. Barriers and pumps can always fall because the forces of nature are against them. We, the people of New Orleans, need to harness nature to protect ourselves. Work with it. Make it our bitch, if you will.

I propose digging a vast reservoir somewhere away from the city, in one of those barren rural areas nobody cares about. This is the US, we have plenty of those. Dig the largest reservoir the world has ever seen, larger than the second largest by an order of magnitude, thereby enlarging our national "infrastructure" by a similar degree. Think of all the new jobs! Connect this reservoir to n'orleans via underground aqueducts. Flood water will drain through the aqueducts and out of the city. This underground system, powered by the laws of physics, would be immune to hurricane and flood damage as long as the reservoir functions.

Now, the obvious problem is reservoir capacity. Luckily, the reservoir is out in the middle of nowhere, allowing us to build huge water holding tanks, pumps, and so forth to empty it out. This system will be outside the hurricane/flood zones, and since it isn't within a populated area it can be much more robust than a city pump system. Furthermore, an array of voodoo priests and druids from n'orleans will periodically bless the reservoir with charms and wards to protect it. The natural power of hundreds of voodoo rituals will guarantee the system's smooth function during crises. In addition, some of these voodoo rituals require large amounts of energy to complete, so we'll have to have massive orgies on the site to reinforce the system. Who could argue with that?

Entrance fees to the ritual orgy will cover a large portion of the costs of the project, and the remaining funding can be gathered by using it as a Sea World. It would be the largest man-made aquarium in the world! Think of the tourism potential. (cue the slashdot trolls with that dolphin link)

It's a brilliant plan. Protection from floods, protection from droughts, new tourism revenue, jobs, hot sex, awesome voodoo powers, and enlargement of the national "infrastructure." What more could you ask for? That's pure New Orleans, baby.

Re:Water City

[Anonymous Coward]

This wouldn't have happened if they were running Linux.

Re:Water City

[mikael]

Secondly, If you just build over the water, then you will have a city built upon an inherintly unstable foundation i.e. A large cavern underground. Would you want to be in an office building that is built over a city sized hole in the ground?


When you build skyscrapers or bridges, you don't just build on top of the ground soil, you dig your foundations piles deep into the groundrock below. Then you use these to build your structure. If you look at any coastal city with skyscrapers, you will see that they excavate underground for many reasons, including in order to seal the foundations from groundwater leakage and to provide underground services (car parks, metro systems, storage, communications).

Many Scottish cities were built in a similar way. Edinburgh was built on seven hills - the Victorians basically built high streets that spanned each valley, with the empty space being used as storage basements for the high street departments stores, and also as an underground rail service to deliver goods direct by train from London to the stores.

Re:Water City

[jcr]

It's a brilliant plan.

No, not really. You can't build a reservoir with enough capacity to deal with a breach that leads to the ocean.

What you could do though, is flood the Sahara, which would drop the world sea level by a few feet. It would basically create a second mediterranean ocean. All you need to do is convince Libya that it's a good idea.

-jcr

Re:Water City

[0olong]

That 'wall' must include small inland dikes as well then (the Great Wall of China stretches for nearly 4000 miles and the Netherlands really isn't that big).

Re:Water City

[Trailwalker]

The New Orleans problem is somewhat man made. The lower Mississippi has changed course many times. The Atchafalaya river has often been the outlet for the Mississippi. If a change of course were to reoccur now, New Orleans would loose much of its commercial value.

The Corps of Engineers has for many decades built dams and levees to prevent the lower Mississippi from changing its course. Among other effects, this has resulted in the river bed raising because of siltation. This required more levees to contain the river in its present embankments.

It has become a question of time until the efforts at forcing the Mississippi into the present channel end in disaster.

Hurricane Katrina is just one more factor in what is an unstable riverine enviornment.

Re:Water City

[ajwitte]

Also, no more building houses below see level So they had better be visible now?

Re:Water City

[ajwitte]

King of Swamp Castle, aka Walt Disney (though at least his stayed up the first time).

Re:Water City

[bjomo]

If the this underground system were "powered by the laws of physics" as you say, would it not have even farther below sea level? So you would need a system in place that protected the reservoir like the city itself.

We could use a system of pumps and levees... or better yet! We could build and even bigger reservoir! Yeah thats it! It could be an order of magnitude bigger than the first one. But the new reservoir would need to be even farther below sea level, so we would need to protect it with a system of...

Re:Water City

[Jozer99]

Never EVER having a hurricane, plus that little kid with his finger in the dike.

Re:Water City

[nicotinix]

While they don't get "Hurricanes" per se, they do get what is called an Orkan, which is pretty much the same.

Re:Water City

[Anonymous Coward]

Eventually we'll hit the Earth's molten core, and then all the water will just turn into steam and float away!

Re:Water City

[DCowern]

The problem isn't that it's below sea level, it's that the entire city is sinking. Without the seasonal overflow of the Mississippi, there's no new silt being built up to replace the silt that's settling. Backfilling won't help much because the fill will eventually settle, too.

In fact, this problem isn't unique to Louisiana, it's affecting most of Southern Louisiana. It's the reason why wetlands are disappearing and why there's so much coastal erosion. When the Army Corps of Engineers tried to control the Mississippi, they met limited success at great cost to the ecosystem in the region.

New Orleans, and Louisana as a whole, is facing a very severe environmental problem with complex geologic issues. Filling the area is a very temporary solution and saying "don't live there" would render nearly half a state uninhabitable (not to mention destroy nearly the entire Cajun culture). There isn't really an "easy" answer.

Disclaimer: IANAGOOES (I am not a geologist or other environmental scientist) but I did take some geology classes at Tulane!

Re:Water City

[Demerara]

Mosquitoes suck.

Forgive me, but isn't this sort of stating the obvious?

Re:Water City

[doktor-hladnjak]

The scariest part about that map is that all the blue areas (below sea level) are also the most densely populated. Thankfully the Dutch know what they're doing after thousands of years of dealing with it.

Re:Water City

[ScrewMaster]

Yeah ... but too bad they don't have a ZPM-powered shield generator to take care of the next Category 5 that comes along.

Re:Water City

[RGRistroph]

I don't think that place in Libya/Egypt that is below sea level is as big as the Mediterrean. It's more like as big as the Great Salt Lake or the Aral Sea.

I once tried to figure out how far sea water had to fall before you could get enough energy out of it to purify it. Is it possible that a canal to the depression, ending in a high dam, might make enough energy to run the water through a purification station before it goes down ? If so, we could have a man-made Great Lake of fresh water in the middle of the Sahara. That would be cool.

Re:Water City

[inode_buddha]

You guys could sell the water to places that need it, like arizona, new mexico, and so-cal. I bet that would pay the cost of running the pumps and putting a thousand miles of pipe.

Re:Water City

[surprise_audit]

Are you nutz?? All that prime beachfront real estate?? Who needs convincing?? I'm surprised Libya hasn't tried it already...

Re:Water City

[sessamoid]

Even more importantly, they let Galveston become a cute little tourist town

Having lived there, I've heard Galveston called a lot of things. I've never heard it called "cute". The prevailing nickname for many of us was "Galvetraz".

Re:Water City

[Waffle Iron]

Well, the Strand seemed cute enough to me. I'll admit that I was usually pretty buzzed when I was there, so maybe my judgment was a little impaired.

Re:Water City

[corngrower]

Although there would be some interesting challenges dealing with the existing below-ground infrastructure.

That would likely mostly have to be discarded. But raising the level of the land, at least some of it, might be a good idea.

Re:Water City

[jiminim]

>> rebuild the rest of the city farther inland.

Like at Natchez, Mississippi. It is on a bluff overlooking the mighty Mississippi and is a couple years older than New Orleans. Never flooded even though the LA side has before...

Re:Water City

[agraupe]

Libya already has some of that, and IIRC, their cities are already built somewhat near the sea. You'd also have to move the cities before the Libyans go along with it.

Re:Water City

[Mr. Underbridge]

Not hurricanes, but North Atlantic storms can still be pretty intense

Ever seen one with 165 MPH sustained winds, gusts over 200 MPH, and a 20-ft storm surge? New Orleans has sustained many storms of the intensity of a North Sea gale. This storm was very different.

Re:Water City

[iocat]

Except, the only reason to go to New Orleans, a hot, sweaty, generally unpleasant place, is for the awesome architecture! (And the fantastic food, obviously.) Seriously I am so bummed that so many awesome, rad, buildings are going to be wrecked. It's never going to be the same. I almost went there this summer, but was like "eh, we can go to New Orleans anytime, let's go to Michigan..."

Re:Water City

[MikeFM]

Sounds cool. Why bother getting Libya's okay? They think we're crazy power mongers anyway. Just do it and see what happens.

Re:Water City

[surprise_audit]

Yeah, but they could beachfront on *both* sides of the country.

Re:Water City

[YU Nicks NE Way]

Yeah, and we could go there every July Fourth to celebrate Grant's successful crossing of the Mississippi in 1864! What an awesome idea -- celebrate the other half of the great victory at Gettysburg.

Of course, for some reason, I don't think that the locals would look at that kind of celebration with such zest.

Re:Water City

[MikeFM]

Death Valley might be big enough and low enough and they certainly could use the water. Actually I've long thought this country needed a national water pipeline connecting all parts of the country, storing extra water, and providing water to areas that need it. It's silly to have some areas flooding while others have drought. If we can pipe oil around we can sure pipe water around too.

Re:Water City

[mobilebuddha]

well think of it this way, the category 5 storms would just be the natural events for the tour!

people complain that themeparks like sixflags are getting stale and don't have enough events.

you'd have a fresh new event/system once a year with this one.

Re:Water City

[Paul Jakma]

While they don't get "Hurricanes" per se, they do get what is called an Orkan, which is pretty much the same.

That would be because "Orkaan" is the dutch word for "Hurricane".

And no, the Netherlands doesn't really get that many hurricanes. The Netherlands greatest problems with flooding tend actually not to come from the sea but from the Rijn, one of the biggest rivers in Europe, which exits to the sea via the Netherlands. It floods regularly.

The way the dutch cope with this is through dijks ('dykes' in english?) and, more recently, through controlled flooding: as it's simply become impossible to fully contain the Rijn, the thinking is now to let it flood as much as possible into farmland and hence reduce the strain on dijks around more important inhabited lands.

The atlantic threat is there too, while not near hurricanes in power, atlantic storms are far more frequent. It seems easier to contain though. There are barriers in place around the entrances to the Zeeland tidal estuaries, which you can see in the map the previous poster gave as blue lines, and there's a truly gigantic floating set of metal arms, which are rotated into place and then sunk, to protect the mouth of the Rotterdam waterway. (To consider how huge these must be, Rotterdam Europoort, the busiest shipping port in the *world* apparently, can just be seen in part to the right in the picture above, with a ferry sailing down that large channel..)

Re:Water City

[MikeFM]

Really I wonder how hard it'd be to enclose important historical areas (any not distroyed?) inside of some sort of futuristic protective dome. Building to be under water sounds silly but it'd be a good experimental area as it isn't always under water but the techniques learned would allow us to build real under water cities thus gaining more real estate and having easier access to undersea natural resources. Overall, I think building undersea would be better done with lots of small modules connected together but doing a big area could be useful for when we need to know how to do it.

Re:Water City

[Zak3056]

Another thought I had is rebuilding the new buildings so that the first floors are parking only, designed specifically to take flooding without major damage.

That will never happen in this day and age, given current security concerns. Two words: "car bomb."

Re:Water City

[mathrock]

Why not just give up on the whole thing and admit the inevitable and find somewhere else to live!?!

Re:Water City

[Overzeetop]

Please don't give him any more ideas. He's only got 3 years left, but he can still do so much more damage if he really puts his back into it.

Re:Water City

[Kadmos]

But I don't *want* a castle, I just want to sing!

Re:Water City

[rodgerd]

through controlled flooding: as it's simply become impossible to fully contain the Rijn

This, as I understand it, is one of the problems in the South: there are so many levees and damns on the river systems that exit around New Orleans to avoid minor flooding they exacerbate the major problems.

That and the destruction of the wetlands has removed a major buffer to storm surges.

Re:Water City

[0x000000]

By building dikes that hold the water back :P

Re:Water City

[LMCBoy]

Some of this will undoubtedly be self-correcting, as the insurance companies are probably going to up their premiums significantly for anyone who insists on rebuilding in the area.

But the insurance companies are surely going to get bailed out by the federal government. Isn't that SOP when a disaster like this strikes? Surely they wouldn't have the gall to up their premiums given that we the taxpayers are picking up the tab! Surely...right?

Re:Water City

[zephc]

"...why don't they rebuild over the water?"

They can call it New New Orleans.

And thus do the historic prophesies laid out in the past begin to come to fruition.

All hail Super King, the best of them all!

Re:Water City

[Spy der Mann]

I know this sounds crazy, but given its bowl shape terrain, instead of pumping out the water and rebuild, why don't they rebuild over the water?

Well, the aztecs have done that. They built their city above the lake using chinampas. Of course, 500 years later, we have a very unstable city, very vulnerable to earthquakes, and some parts are beginning to sink.

So I think I'd vote for the 9-week pumping.

Re:Water City

[Ernesto5]

Thus, without the Sahara flooding solution, I would suggest the "unthinkable" to many Southern Republican politicians: Write off New Orleans. New Orleans is pretty much gone. We need to start thinking about a New New Orleans/refugee camp inland. Water will "find away" and with all the excess in Lake Pontchatrain and the Mississippi and the lack of wetlands (oh, the irony), the water will seep in and "equilibrate" with bathtub that is New Orleans. Pumping out the water there now is not cost effective. Call what happened in New Orleans for what it is: an ecological disaster in the making. Excessive industrial and residential development and erecting levees destroy wetlands that naturally buffer against post-hurricane flooding were the fault of the people in Louisiana. This maybe a stretch on my part, but I would say the unusually frequent hurricane season could be attributed to global warming and violent hurricanes like this will be the annual norm if certain government(s) do not take global warming seriously. But yeah, I'd have to say we may have to write off New Orleans. It's too sad to see all the history, culture, music, and good food (gumbo!) disappear, but Nature cannot be fooled.

Re:Water City

[Eccles]

I've thought about this myself, but I think it's impractical. Think about New York's massive, 50 year pipeline project, and how small that is relative to the national system you propose.

Re:Water City

[Laurance]

I think that this is global warming begining to show its ugly face. On-top of that, Several key oil refineries are down right now, this could mean higher gas and heating bills down the road this year.
I think that we need sustainable energy now. So that we might curb this problems like this in the future with, renewable energies and more decentralization of energy.

Re:Water City

[Schemat1c]

I know this sounds crazy, but given its bowl shape terrain, instead of pumping out the water and rebuild, why don't they rebuild over the water?

One thing I've wondered is why floating houses aren't constructed in heavy flood areas. Rings could be attached to the house that would allow it slide up very long poles to keep it in place when the water rises.

Re:Water City

[jiminim]

Vicksburg was captured on July 4. The Natchez people were a bunch of weaklings and surrendered to a boat. Apparently being shelled sucks. Thank God Sherman did not come across Natchez or we would not have pretty houses for the park service to purchase...

Re:Water City

[TheNarrator]

and once the water drains away

Where is water going to drain away to if the city is below sea level? If a dam breaks and wipes out a city, the water will eventually drain somewhere. This is not the case in New Orleans.

Re:Water City

[glitchvern]

What makes more sense, is what was done in Gavelston after it was wiped off the face of the map in 1900 by a hurricane. They dredged the surrounding inland waterways and raised the entire island by some 17 feet. In areas of New Orleans that require existing structures be razed could have this done.

This was made substantially easier by the fact that most of the 2,100 buildings raised in the process, including the 3,000 ton St. Patrick's church, were already on stilts. Also they didn't have skyscrapers. Even then the raising of the city and the seawall was made a National Historical Civil Engineering Landmark.

Re:Water City

[Guppy06]

"why don't they rebuild over the water?"

Because it's tough enough keeping the buildings above-ground as it is when there ain't no bedrock, there's no need to think of ways to make them even heavier.

Re:Water City

[JPriest]

All good points. The other problem they face is that they cannot simply rebuild buildings on stilts becasue they would not sustain the high winds. The best solution may be something like my house that sits near small river; An above ground basement. The first floor is about 6 feet above raised ground. Moving the garage into an above ground basement may also make it cost effective. This is not a total solution (~8 ft vs 20) but it is better than what they have in place today.

Re:Water City

[Hans Lehmann]

An excellent writeup of this situation can be found in The Control of Nature, by John McPhee. I reread this book just about a month ago, and kept thinking about as the storm was progressing on Sunday.
New Orleans wasn't always below sea level, it only became that way from mans insistance that the Mississippi river never change course. Even if all the flood water gets pumped out this time, and all the homes and businesses get rebuilt, it will only be a matter of years before another hurricane hits the city. The next time, the city will be even further below sea level, and the river and the levees will be even higher and more prone to failure. The city is destined to dissappear in our lifetimes or in our children's lifetimes, it's only a matter of when.

Re:Water City

[Mspangler]

New Orleans is sinking due to normal geology (can't blame W for this). Sea level is rising due to a natural cycle that has been amplifed by human activities (Can partly blame W; he didn't start it, but he's not doing much about it either.)

I think it's time to abandon New Orleans. Even if you put it back together this time, another storm is likely to repeat the whole mess, and since it will be even further below sea level by then, the damage will be even worse.

They put the area around Mt. St. Helens off-limits to construction after all. Same reasoning should apply to New Orleans.

Re:Water City

[digidave]

They could have chrooted the city to Colorado for a few weeks or taken hurricane off the ACL.

Re:Water City

[threedays]

You mean G-Town, WHAT! born and raised.

Re:Water City

[lgw]

You say that like it's a *bad* thing. You sound like one of them liberals. Don't worry, once we're fininshed with the *external* enemies of America, your kind is next! I've seen the camps under contstruction - ohhh, what surprises await you!

Re:Water City

[EnderWiggnz]

good lord, we already do this in the western half of the US... Hoover dam? Control of the Colorado.

We've got a million+ people living in the middle of the arizona desert, drinking water from the diverted colorado.

we have an adult playground in Las Vegas, in the middle of the fricking desert. and it consumes a ridiculous amount of water.

so... why couldnt we do a "national system"? half the country drinks the colorado, anyway...

Re:Water City

[DavidTC]

We don't have to write it off.

What we need to do is flood it up to sea level. Construct some levies and whatnot there to control waves and stuff, but don't try to control the level.

The parts that are underwater? Build another Venice. Correctly this time.

Make sure there's a flow through the city so you don't get nasty stagent water. And make sure that people understand the base of the city will continue to sink, so they need to either have buildings that can raise up, or buildings where they can just throw away the bottom floor every once in a while.

Build pipe systems to carry a water around, and a system of bridges to drive on. Make the pipe segments more intelligent, where if pressure drops they'll immediately turn that section off, so nasty water doesn't backtrack into the system.

Aternately, we can just require everyone to build water-proof houses, and attach boats to their roofs. When bad weather is coming we can just preemptively slowly open the levies and turn off the pumps so that they don't break.

Because, seriously. We 'protect' New Orleans as long as possible, but we can't design a 'break-proof' system. We either need a system that can't break, or a system we're willing to turn off when horrible weather hits. Either way require New Orleans delibrately being underwater some of the time.

What we must not do it build the damn city back the way it was. Yes, it will probably be cheaper right now. It won't be cheaper in the long run.

Re:Water City

[flawedgeek]

Amen, brother.


Who needs karma, anyway?

Re:Water City

[DavidTC]

Even if the Mississippi was flooding through New Orleans on a regular basis, that wouldn't magically put silt under buildings.

There is absolutely no way to stop the buildings from sinking barring some sort of thrusters attached to the sides of the building pulling them up, or digging foundations that are a few hundred feet deep.

What we could is a Rome solution. When the city sinks a story, we throw dirt down and build all the roads a floor higher. ;)

In fact, I rather hope they build on top of the rubble instead of clearing it away.

Re:Water City

[DavidTC]

Raising the land would be the worst possible solution.

Why? Because the land is sinking. Raising it is just delaying solving the problem.

Re:Water City

[Anonymous Coward]

That;s because the most densly populated areas tend to compact and sink. That's what's happening in Netherlands as well as New Orleans and some other places. They sink.

Now add global warming producing more storms and increasing sea levels from melting ice in Antarctica and you see why low lying areas like Florida, New Orleans and Netherlands are really fucked in the long term.

Re:Water City

[stupidfoo]

Yes, and the upper midwest and canada would just like to say: you can have water from the great lakes when you pry it from our dead lips

The western desert areas have a problem with water? Too bad... move to f'en Indiana.

Re:Water City

[topham]

Uh-oh, sounds like they have a new movie set and can start filming Waterworld 2

Let's hope they don't.

Re:Water City

[DavidTC]

The city didn't get hit with a hurricane. It barely missed them. But it passed them safely by.

Then the system of levies and pumps couldn't handle the amount of water and two levies overflowed and broke, flooding the city.

Any other city would be drying out and restoring power about now. New Orleans is stuck underwater, and will be for the forseeable future, until they fix the dikes and pump the water out.

However, you are correct in that the dead we know of now are because of the hurricane. Something like 30 people alone died in a building that blew over, and you obviously can't blame that on the flooding. Many of the dead we know about we learned about before the flooding.

However, we don't know how many people drown until the city gets back to functioning. There could be thousands of people who got trapped in their houses and drowned.

And a lot of people are going to die because of lack of drinking water and power.

Re:Water City

[Marillion]

Somewhat tangental ...
Fourteen years ago, I took a tour of one of the pumping stations in New Orleans. The operator took great pride in pointing out the the Dutch asked them about pumping technology. I don't know for sure when, but I think it was recently. The Dutch, of course, have been pumping for centuries, but there was a catastrophic failure during the 1950's which lead to a major redesign and fortification of the who dyke system.

Re:Water City

[mboverload]

4 words and one number: "1993 World Trade Center bombing"

Re:Water City

[SpaceLifeForm]

And that is why there is now a mandatory evacuation. With the levees failing (2 major breaks already), the city is being flooded even worse than the video you may have already seen. With no power, and no hope of fixing the levees soon, there is no choice but to force everyone out.

Can New Orleans be fixed up sufficiently by 2006-02-28?

Re:Water City

[mboverload]

"It covers half the planet!"

Re:Water City

[pizen]

Don't get too bummed. The other reason to go (aside from the architecture and food) is the culture! The city has been around for almost 300 years. I don't think the locals will let a little flooding (ok, a lot of flooding) destroy their heritage. I just hope my personal favorite little sandwich shop (Domelici's...one of many hole-in-the-wall places in a little neighborhood) has enough insurance coverage to come back. Sure some old buildings will come down but I don't think for a minute something bland will go up in their place. New Orleans burned in 1788 and 1795 but was built back (ever wonder why the French Quarter is mostly Spanish architecture?)

But seriously, you picked Michigan over New Orleans? That's always a poor choice.

Re:Water City

[cdrdude]

I wave my private parts at your empties!

Re:Water City

[jigyasubalak]

Mosquitoes don't breed in salt water. Duh!

Re:Water City

[DavidTC]

500 years?

New Orleans, in it's present form, has only been there about 170. And it's not going to be there in 100 no matter what.

500 years would be great.

Re:Water City

[jd0g85]

A couple of factors against simply rebuilding over the water are excessive cost and safety issues,

But I thought boats were safer than cars?

Re:Water City

[boner]

Yes,

they might have asked about pumping, but the dutch could surely have told them something about interconnected systems of dykes so that one or two failures would NOT lead to complete flooding. If you have ever visited both the dutch polders and New Orleans, that would have been an obvious observation. However, those interconnected systems cost a lot of money to build and maintain.

Re:Water City

[sirsnork]

I believe thats the point being made. At the moment with current technology we CAN'T solve the problem. Which means either we close our eyes and just make the same mistakes and not learn anything, or we try to delay solving the problem until we can solve it properly.

Re:Water City

[WhiplashII]

Actually, it is vitually certain that insurance companies will pay very little if anything. You cannot get flood insurance when your propperty is below sea level. Just like you can't get earthquake insurance if your house is on a fault line.

Re:Water City

[johnny cashed]

Until someone finally puts a dam across the strait of Gibraltar, and drys up your precious Mediterranean Sea for development. Until terrorists blow the dam, wiping out said future development. Hey, I think I have a business plan...

Re:Water City

[kmhebert]

In fact, this problem isn't unique to Louisiana, it's affecting most of Southern Louisiana.

OH! So... it's unique to Louisiana?

Re:Water City

[mrchaotica]

No, no, no! You got it all wrong. Here's how it's supposed to go:

'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This joke is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the post 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-JOKE!!

Re:Water City

[ThaFooz]

Sure, but when the basis of comparison is Houston, what isn't cute?

Re:Water City

[mrchaotica]

They'd damn well better raise their premiums! Otherwise us taxpayers are footing the entire bill, and there's nothing to discourage the people from rebuilding in the same idiotic location that just got destroyed!

Re:Water City

[DavidTC]

I fail to see the difference between those two approaches. The entire history of New Orleans has been 'delaying the problem'.

Re:Water City

[boner]

While the North Sea does not get 200 MPH gusts, or even 165 MPH sustained winds, the North Sea has one nasty aspect. In essence the North Sea is a funnel, open at the north end and constricted at the south (the channel). South of the channel high and low water tides can actually be more than 10m apart (33ft).
In the Netherlands, the height of the dykes has been determined based on the requirement to withstand a superstorm coinciding with high tide (the lunar type, not the daily ones). Therefore, depending where you are in the Netherlands, the height of those dykes is between 5m (16ft) and 10m (33ft) above sea level, depending on the probability of being breached (must be less than 1:10000 years).

So, if New Orleans had followed a similar approach, it would have been clear that their defenses were woefully inadequate given the level of the risk.

Global warming has nothing to do with it, this is pure risk management and making informed choices. I do pity the folks in New Orleans and the general area and wish them good fortune in getting their lives back together.

Re:Water City

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

If the Republicans ever open a position for Minister of Tourism, I think you should apply for the job.

Re:Water City

[E8086]

"What we could is a Rome solution"

How about Simpsons a solution?
When the town(city) gets too poluted(flooded) everyone packs up and moves 5mi down the road.
(accual distance my vary by location)

When does it become cheaper scrap what was there and just start over somewhere else? 80% of the city flooded under as much as 20ft of water, billions in damages, possibly 9 weeks to pump out, not rebuild, just to make the ground dry again. By that time most of the structures will be even less safe for human inhabitation than they are now. Ok, this may not be popular with the New Orleans and southern LA residents, but rebuilding everything as it was is not going to address the problem of the river being diverted and not being allowed to flood, depositing sediment rebuilding up the land. I remember reading about how the nile used to flood in ancient history class, how did the Egyptions deal with seasonal river flooding until they built the Aswan High Dam? I think they were dealing with the floods for at least a couple thousand years. The population on the banks of the river was never that high, maybe we should take a hint, but waterfront property has such a high value, until it's under water. Unfortunately it usually takes a big disaster for people to really see the problem and change things, if you've ever seen "Modern Marvels Engineering Disasters" there are at least 12eps covering at least 3 disasters each. That's at least three doven things that took something reallly bad happening before it was changed for the better.

Re:Water City

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Water City

[E8086]

They just need to rebuild the city on a really big hovering platform over the old city and call it NEW New Orleans

Re:Water City

[stvangel]

I remember reading proposals for something like this that were going around in the late 40's and 50's. The idea was that you would use nuclear weapons to blast out a canal/sea into the interior of Libya. The aims weren't to lower the sea level, but to provide an area of high evaporation and moisture content that would dramatically increase the rainfall in Egypt, Israel, and the Arabian peninsula.

A lot of people were really interested in the idea and the UN even investigated it, but it finally died due to concerns about the fallout and radiation and such, particularily amongst the Libyans and people downwind of the blasts.

It's a very interesting idea, but the amount of rock and earth that would have to be moved using conventional mining and digging is prohibitive. Many people were also uneasy about affecting weather patterns that dramatically, no matter what the immediate gain.

Re:Water City

[supabeast!]

If they're smart, they won't rebuild - there are just too many horrible problems with the location, and it would make a lot more sense to just clean up the mess to keep it out of the oceans, flood it, and let a new port city grow up in a saner location. Given how unlikely it is that most of the city's residents, particularly the poor, had flood insurance, there's a good chance that many of them will have to pack up, leave, and start over somewhere else rather than staying around waiting for New New Orleans to become a reality; and without much of a lower class or middle class it won't be easy to start a new city.

Re:Water City

[hobo sapiens]

Man, I think Blue Oyster Cult had it right all along

History show again and again
how nature points out the folly of man
GODZILLA!!!
...er...never mind...

It seems that all of the attemps to engineer this area have backfired. The wetlands that naturally existed would have provided a buffer zone against the storm surge. The flooding of the Mississippi river, while producing undesirable flooding, would have deposited sediment that would provide more land mass which in turn would lessing the flooding.

Of course groups like the Army Corps of Engineers had good intentions -- to protect a very old city. But one cannot help but think that man should leave alone ecosystems that he doesn't really understand. I mean, would you want a mechanic working on your car who did not really understand how an engine works? I wouldn't!

It would seem that past disasters (midwest flooding of 1993, slash & burn farming inthe tropical rainforests) have provided enough empirical data to at show us that it is better devise land management strategies that work in harmony with nature and not against it. You can only hold back a river for so long before it wins. Why not just build out of its path? Of course, this is a moot point when dealing with a city nearly 300 years old (interestingly, the oldest sections at the time of writing are still not inundated...maybe the French actually knew what they were doing?). Anyhow, maybe we will learn from this tragedy.

Oh yeah...to all the not-brights that post stuff like "why do MY tax dollars have to pay for this" or "it's their fault for living there"...when your H2 catches fire and takes your parent's McMansion with it, you'll want some money. And likely you'll get it. And, as with this disaster, we'll all pay for it. So shaddup! It's called society. Be a part of it or move to Antarctica.

Uh oh! My mom says I have to turn out the light now! Bye!

Re:Water City

[modecx]

Oh, I think I've seen those... Are they by chance near the Scientologist's secret bunkers?

Re:Water City

[EtherealStrife]

Nice idea! So nice in fact, that it's already been done *cough* and again *cough*

Re:Water City

[Paul Jakma]

Dyke is simply an older form of spelling of dijk. "Ij" (lange-ei) in dutch is pronounced similarly to "y" and indeed used to be written as "y" in dutch. My dictionary tells me that "dyke" is indeed an acceptable english spelling, and indeed I think it's by the more common form, at least on this side of the english speaking world.

Re:Water City

[EtherealStrife]

oh blah and the cali aqueduct wiki:

and once again

Re:Water City

[tonsofpcs]

Down the road? Gas (87 octane unleadded) just went up 15 cents overnight.

Re:Water City

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the houses that are built on slabs that have pilings beneath them are the ones that don't sink. Unfortunately, the ground around the house continues to sink. After a few years, you need to build a concrete ramp up from your driveway into the carport/garage. Or you just give it up, and turn the carport into a raised porch, and build steps.

For the yard, you buy a load of fill dirt each year, and re-sod it. But eventually, you'll start seeing daylight under the house's foundation.

Re:Water City

[einhverfr]

I guess that is what these floods are good for, huh?

I wonder how much of the city will be salvagable after this, but from what you say, those old buildings based on slabs and pilings should at least have an intact foundation.....

Re:Water City

[CaptainCarrot]

It says something about me that I posted what I did knowing perfectly well that I was setting myself up for this kind of thing.

Re:Water City

[Paul Jakma]

It seems to be a general problem with developed land really. There's a problem seen in Ireland and the UK with broad valleys of land which become very developed: All the concrete, tarmac, and storm drains simply funnel rain down a hinterland into the rivers - where previously far more of that rain would be absorbed into the ground and only slowly make its way to either the water table or the river.

The people living downstream of the river then suffer freak flash floods.

I think we need to become far more intelligent about land use with respect to flooding. Particularly given global warming and higher amount of energy and water that will be in atmosphere.

Re:Water City

[damsa]

That's what Seattle did. However. landfills are a bad idea for earthquake prone areas.

Re:Water City

[HardCase]

Actually, this is not global warming showing its face. We've gone through several decades of below normal hurricane seasons (in terms of strength and quantity) and now we've had a few seasons above normal - for the gulf region. Worldwide, although ocean temperatures have risen, the overall number and strength of cyclones have not. There are plenty of other reasons for a more active hurricane season, but, at least at this point, global warming is not one of them.

There's been quite a bit of discussion on this subject in the news outlets. On the one hand, it seems like the global warming hand wringing is being done by, to put it nicely, non-scientists, while the oceanographers, geographers and meteorologists have pointed to the fairly meticulous statistics that don't show a causal link to hurricanes and global warming - yet.

Also, the whole oil refinery issue could have been avoided if not for the NIMBY problem. Don't want an oil refinery in your area? Suffer the consequences.

-h-

Re:Water City

[PierceLabs]

The flood walls around the city were designed to withstand a fast moving category 3 storm, not a slow stong category 4.

Re:Water City

[damsa]

Futurama solution. New New Orleans. I like that.

Re:Water City

[StikyPad]

I think a far better idea would be to call it a wash and rebuild New New Orleans further inland. The land under New Orleans is soft and, if I'm not mistaken, continues to sink even today. Why rebuild in an area where any number of problems could wipe out the entire city -- again? I realize there are historic resons, and sentimental reasons, and those will probably overrule the practical reasons to just leave it to nature and the archeaologists of the future. It wouldn't be the first city in history which wasn't rebuilt.

Re:Water City

[name773]

"Uh oh! My mom says I have to turn out the light now! Bye!"

best ending i've seen in a while, and i'm not kidding

Re:Water City

[johnny cashed]

The moderators have been sacked. where's the (-1, english humor) moderation when we really need it?

Re:Water City

[StikyPad]

There's no reason a culture can't exist in a different location. You might not have the same stories to tell about who walked where and built what, but being alive and living in a relatively safe location (e.g., above sea level) is sort of important too.

Re:Water City

[Paul Jakma]

No, it's rare. For a hurricane to get to the NL it first has to miss the USA and get carried by the jetstream first north offshore of the USA's eastern seaboard, and then west across the atlantic by the jetstream.

When it eventually gets across the atlantic a week or two later it will not be that strong anymore, more a big atlantic depression, plus it typically first has to cross Ireland and the UK to get to the Netherlands, which tend to dissipate even more energy.

The only hurricane I can think of which hit the NL and UK was in 1987, it actually originated from the Bay of Biscay, strangely. Wind speeds were recorded of 70 to 100 knots by the british met service. (1 knot is greater than 1mph).

Atlantic storms with wind speeds of anywhere from 30 to 50 knots are a bit more typical over here, particularly during the winter.

Re:Water City

[SiggyRadiation]

An "orkaan" would be equal to wind force 12 on the Beaufort scale. We get a 12 maybe once every 20 years or so. Last time was 1979.

Re:Water City

[StikyPad]

What we must not do it build the damn city back the way it was. Yes, it will probably be cheaper right now. It won't be cheaper in the long run.

Exactly. Which is why they should do the cheaper AND rational solution: Rebuild elsewhere.

Re:Water City

[StikyPad]

Something like 30 people alone died in a building that blew over, and you obviously can't blame that on the flooding.

Actually it collapsed when it got hit by the storm surge, which is flooding; just from the ocean instead of a lake or a river.

Re:Water City

[fandog]

>>What we must not do it build the damn city back the way it was. Yes, it will probably be cheaper right now. It won't be cheaper in the long run.

>Exactly. Which is why they should do the cheaper AND rational solution: Rebuild elsewhere.

This would imply some amount of foresight and common sense on the part of everyone involved, (especially politicians), so I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Water City

[Anonymous Coward]

The North Sea does not get storms as bad as Hurricane Katrina in terms of wind speed. It DOES get storms as bad as Katrina in terms of damage due to floods on very rare occasions. Check out what happened in 1953 to England and the Netherlands. That storm killed over 224 at sea, 307 in the UK and 1,835 in the Netherlands, although its storm surge was only 11ft, or about half that of Hurricane Katrina.

Re:Water City

[mhearne]

Great idea! You know, when they rebuilt Atlanta, after the Civil War, they just built over the ruins, instead of clearing them away, and now that city is about 50 feet higher than it originally was.

If they could bring New Orleans up 50 feet, they'd never have to pump again.

Of course, it's a lot like the man who built his house next to the railroad, and then spent all his time complaining about the noise, or the Californian, who built his house on a hillside (on stilts!) and then couldn't afford reasonable insurance.

Or even worse, the city of Austin, TX, which built a series of jogging trails on the local creek bottoms, and then insisted on spending millions "rebuilding" them after each flash flood. It has a lot to do with planning and civil engineering.

I should probably mention common sense as well.

New Orleans should probably be abandoned and moved to higher ground.

Michael

Re:Water City

[kahanamoku]

throwing money at a flood is a nice way to liquidate!

Re:Water City

[mhearne]

Galveston was a pretty cool place, before the dictatorship started (1981).

Never mind that, how many people have been made homeless in New Orleans, and the South in general, and how are the treatment centers going to be able to handle them all?

Michael

Re:Water City

[Alioth]

Galveston is not 'cute'. It's desperately awful. I used to live not far from there. The place is run down and decaying.

Re:Water City

[jayrex]

The Dutch had their share in 1953, which prompted them to develop the infamous "Delta Works" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works, which is a bit more complex than just some dikes.

Re:Water City

[ScouseMouse]

It will certainly make an interesting resource for future archeologists.

Re:Water City

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

here was a catastrophic failure during the 1950's which lead to a major redesign and fortification of the who dyke system.

At which point the Dutch, recognizing the importance of dykes to their society, becoming the first nation to legalize gay marriage, giving dykes all the same legal rights and privileges as straits.

Re:Water City

[physicist]

Off course, we can help.
The best advice is to not build your pumps below sea level. You're welcome.

Re:Water City

[toddbu]

That may well happen for a large number of people, just like what happened in Florida last year. There were lots of people who just said "screw it", packed their bags, and moved out. If you have a large mortgage and limited insurance coverage then declaring bankruptcy and moving away is an attractive option. I also suspect that given the number of dead bodies laying in the streets, there will also be a contingent of people who will move away just because they're unable to deal with the thought of those images.

Re:Water City

[ultranova]

'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-JOKE!!

Jokes don't have a mortal coil. No matter how many times Beowulf cluster of Soviet Russian overlords get beaten to death, it will always come back for more. No, (bad) jokes are immortal, now matter how much we might wish otherwise...

Re:Water City

[pglee]

There are two big issues with the location of New Orleans. Hurricanes is one of them. The 2nd and potentially longer term issue is the switching course of the Mississippi and corresponding delta lobes (areas where river deposits sediment) The following link shows the change over the past 5000 years ( a geological blink of an eye) http://faculty.gg.uwyo.edu/heller/Sed%20Strat%20Cl ass/Sedstrat6/mississippi_delta_lobes.htm taken from http://faculty.gg.uwyo.edu/heller/Sed%20Strat%20Cl ass/Sedstrat6/sedlect_6.htm

Re:Water City

[MikeFM]

Don't be silly. If you divert potential flood waters and redirect them or even store them for use where they're needed then it doesn't really matter where the water comes from. There is certainly enough to go around. A frequent problem I've seen is that during part of the year an area will flood and during other parts of the year the same area will be in drought. If we captured and stored the flood waters we could solve both problems.

As a nation-wide system it could spread the load across everyone. I've lived in the midwest. Both floods and droughts are an ongoing problem. I currently live in Las Vegas and funny enough it's a problem here too. When it rains it floods and when it doesn't there is a shortage of water. To some degree Lake Mead is the local storage system but it doesn't do much good for people upstream that aren't connected to the local water supply system.

Re:Water City

[MikeFM]

Funny, I didn't realize any of those were nation-wide systems. Such a system would really work better when spread out across a wider area as of course weather patterns differ much more across wider areas. :)

Re:Water City

[pimpimpim]

>the thinking is now to let it flood as much as possible into farmland and hence reduce the strain on dijks around more important inhabited lands. This is not a new idea at all, we have been having "uiterwaarden" since centuries (clear picture here: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zomerkade ) The only problem with it, is that this land that was ment to be flooded and only be used to grass cows on, got builded on, for which is was never ment (obviously). But what is probably new is that whole regions of land are assigned to be flooded when necessary, I'm not sure what they'll do with the people that live there at the moment, though.

Re:Water City

[tigersha]

The Soviets also had the idea of draining the Caspain like that. They even started experimenting and build a dam with a nuclear explosion. Which is now a problem because the rim is still somewhat radioactive.

Re:Water City

[lotusdriver]

If we can pipe oil around we can sure pipe water around too. Moving water around the country doesn't help a lard ass SUV driver to drive down to the supermarket to buy bottled water.

Re:Water City

[RickySan]

The Dutch don't get hurricanes. We don't huh?, thats funny, cause i can remember storms during the fall that had hurricane speeds to it, along with springtide and other various things nature throws in. Still no flooding occured then.. why?, cause the system in place works. The good people in new orleans should revise their "water strategy", I'm sure that Dutch engineers will be more then happy to help them out. For those who say "yeah but new orleans is below sealevel",guess what so is 2/3's of the netherlands, the place i grew up in was 7 metres below sealevel. So in a lot of ways the New Orleans area is similair to the Netherlands. It's just that we figured out ways to keep the water out (for now anyways).

Re:Water City

[hcdejong]

That;s because the most densly populated areas tend to compact and sink.

True, but quite a few of our population centres are in areas that were below sea level to begin with: they're in polders (reclaimed land).

Re:Water City

[DonnieD701]

Could mean higher gas prices? The oil companies have our number already. One refinery in the N.O. area supplies most of the gasoline to the great lakes areas (Ohio, Mich, ETC).. Gas prices in Toledo OH jumped from $2.45/gal to $2.95/gal in a matter of 6 hours. I haven't been out since 6 last night, so I will bet that they are over $3/gal now. I know that there are places with higher prices, but 18 months ago this area was paying around $1.35/gal.

Re:Water City

[speculatrix]

East Anglia in the UK also does this: to protect the City of Cambridge, outlying fields are allowed to flood.. even so, some houses right by the river can end up flooded, perhaps by a foot or two of water, but its's relatively controlled, a slow rising rather than a surge.

Global warming may end up killing enough of the human population so that equilibrium will be restored - i.e. the use of fossil fuels will fall in relation to the reducing population. The snag for many of the world's people is that the first mass deaths will probably be those who didn't "enjoy" the wealth/energy that caused it.

Re:Water City

[frisket]

• Don't live in places which are subject to this kind of weather, on this kind of terrain
• If you do,
  • don't build your houses of wood
  • don't build your offices with flat surfaces facing the direction of the weather
  • don't build roofs which act as airfoils

The best cure for seasickness is to go and sit under a tree. [Spike Milligan]

Re:Water City

[Eccles]

..when your H2 catches fire and takes your parent's McMansion with it, you'll want some money.

Well yeah, that's why I pay for insurance. I wouldn't expect a check from the Feds, though.

If I build near a fault-line, building codes generally require somewhat earthquake-resistant construction. Up north? Roofs strong enough to survive the snow weight. Near the ocean and below sea level? Make the first story non-residential, they do that along the Atlantic beaches now. The objection is that we're going to have to pay for them not taking the first level of precautions.

There is a problem that certain disasters are too big for insurance. Hurricane Andrew bankrupted some insurance companies, and Katrina looks like it could do the same. I can certainly see fed assistance for particularly large distasters. But I can also complain if the people in those areas didn't build in a way to mitigate the impact of those distasters.

Re:Water City

[jacksonj04]

Oh I wish I had mod points :D

Re:Water City

[EtherealStrife]

Actually, the Colorado river supplies water to most of the desert/drought regions that -- I assume -- you were referring to. I seem to be missing the point of a nation-wide system that would waste Nature's own waterways in favor of massive pumping stations, reservoirs, loss of human and animal life (during construction), and the $$$. Little old Trans-Alaska cost $8 billion back in the 70's, and what you are asking for would have to transport considerably greater volumes of liquid to a considerably larger area. Such a figure would probably be in the trillions of dollars, and the U.S. isn't exactly in a position to blow that kind of money on a redundant system.

Oh, and if your apparent humor / sarcasm is directed at the other end of the pipelines, it doesn't seem to be feasible to pump flood waters out West and would be a downright bargain (compared to the System) to have pumping/irrigation systems set up on a smaller scale: to handle -- on a city by city basis -- emergency crises and nothing more. Which is pretty much where New Orleans is at right now.

Re:Water City

[theufo]

From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:

    dike
              n 1: offensive terms for a lesbian who is noticeably masculine
                        [syn: {butch}, {dyke}]
              2: a barrier constructed to contain the flow of water or to
                    keep out the sea [syn: {dam}, {dyke}, {levee}]
              v : enclose with a dike; "dike the land to protect it from
                      water" [syn: {dyke}]

Re:Water City

[justforaday]

*ding*ding*ding*ding*

The entire Mississippi delta has been formed by the river continuously switching course and spreading sediments over the alluvial plain down there. Had they not tried to lock the river into it's current path, it would most likely be flowing about 50 miles away by now. Trying to tell nature that it's going to work the way human's want it to will always result in disasters like this. And this is said by someone who's parents just lost their house, car, and boat due to Katrina.

Re:Water City

[Fastball]

Mosquitoes don't breed in salt water. Duh!However, they do breed in fresh water which is what is leaking in from breached levees between New Orleans and Lake Pontchartrain.

Re:Water City

[macsuibhne]

1953

Re:Water City

[UnapprovedThought]

In the Netherlands, the height of the dykes has been determined based on the requirement to withstand a superstorm

Since a similar commitment of sufficiently eye-poppingly expensive public works projects will likely not be made for New Orleans, rebuilding it will not be a permanent solution, as it will just get flooded again with the next storm. It will be cheaper in the long run to move the entire city brick-by-brick to higher ground. Ultimately the ocean will claim the bowl one way or the other, so rather than try to adopt the full Netherlands' solution there, we might as well spend the money on renewable energy projects that don't create any more greenhouse gases. (I'm not sure if it is too late anyway to stop the chain reaction of glacier melting, methane discharges and albedo changes that will cause sea levels to rise and surface salinity to decrease, but how else can the increase in storm severity be explained? If you need more solid data on historical storm severity, see my journal.)

Now, if New Orleans is to be moved brick-by-brick somewhere else, where should it be moved to? Most people probably think Baton Rouge, but if you want to save the city permanently, may I suggest one of the drier counties in the Texas Panhandle? :)

Re:Water City

[Skagit]

Rebuilding it any other way than how it was is going to be very difficult. The worst problem I think is that New Orleans and a segment of the population at large is going to demand that the fundamental character of the city remain unchanged. NO wants it to remain because it makes money, with Mardi Gras and Superbowls and the like. People at large like it because it has these things. Plus, some of it, such as the historic register buildings, can't be changed, ene if they are built in the worst possible location.

Not only can we not changed the fundamental character of the city, by custom and law, we won't have funds to do it. FEMA and insurance aren't designed, by and large, to upgrade after a disaster, they are designed to return the status quo. If newer methods and technologies, like better impermeable earth cores and geotextiles in the levees are incorporated, that's a fringe benefit. The money won't be there to put in deep foundations (though they might be required in new building codes) and bigger levees. There certainly won't be enough money to create a change from a below-sea-level city to an above-sea-level city. We'll get back almost exactly what we have.

The only thing I think we can get done in this aftermath is to restore NO to its pre-storm state (and hope the bath scrubbed out some of the nastier stains) and augment the existing flood control methods as allowed within the existing funds. We aren't going to get a New Venice, We're going to get New Orleans v1.01.

If true improvements are to come, they'll be from the ACoE and their funds, but those upgrades are going to be tacked on after the restoration. Before the storm, the Old River Control System and Atchafalaya system were on the list first, but since this happened, NO will get the focus. The ORCS is the real lynch pin, because if that fails, the Mighty Muddy Mississippi goes through the Big Easy, easily. It'll make Katrina look as harmful as a girl with beads on a Bourbon Street Balcony.

If you're interested in some of the workings of the local Army Corps of Engineers and the Atchafalaya and Mississippi interaction, look up John McPhee's book The Control Of Nature.

Re:Water City

[mcvos]

We did? I thought I heard on the radio yesterday that we never get anything beyond force 11.

In any case, when you're hit by a hurricane, there's nothing you can possibly do to prevent flooding. What's important is that you're able to end the flood as soon as possible. Fix the dikes, and have plenty of reliable pumps ready to pump all that water back into the sea again.

This 9 week estimate suggests to me that New Orleans neglected to be sufficiently prepared for this.

What I'm wondering is: does Netherland have any specialised aid we can send to help? It sounds to me like New Orleans could really use some.

mcv.

Re:Water City

[Bobbysmith007]

I say , why not just give up and start somewhere thats not below sea level in a urricane zone. But I guess that would make too much sense. Besides, Old New Orleans would be a great dive site and could draw even more tourists to New New Orleans

Re:Water City

[bjomo]

If we are going to pipe flood water out of flooded coastal cities, are we not going to have to desalinate that water? If that is the case, why bother waiting for flood waters? We've got the oceans themselves right there.

Re:Water City

[Dunkirk]

It's just the next logical step to prepare us to build the FLOATING CITIES that will be required to survive when our planet becomes like the movie WATERWORLD because of GLOBAL WARMING!

Re:Water City

[The Grassy Knoll]

It's a shame they didn't think to call the hurricane "Kyoto", rather than "Katrina", seeing as they were on the "K"s.

THAT would have woken up some people to the dangers we're facing right now, never mind 20 years down the line...

.

Re:Water City

[mdarksbane]

That'll work great for stone and concrete buildings, but building on the "rubble" of anything like wood or such that decomposes is a great way to have your house's foundation split in two.

Re:Water City

[moonbender]

Word is you guys make excellent potato chips! ;)

Re:Water City

[CrazyTalk]

Don't get me wrong - the whole situation is a tragedy. But, "Don't live there" may in fact be the best long term answer. Perhpas half the state SHOULD not be habitated - think of the ongoing cost to continue to "hold back" nature. As for the disapearing Cajun culture, the Jews managed to perserve their culture for thousands of years without being in their homeland, and I think the Cajun culture will continue on likewise.

Re:Water City

[theonetruekeebler]

Several key oil refineries are down right now, this could mean higher gas and heating bills down the road this year.

The refineries aren't that badly damaged. The problem is that they have no power. As for higher prices, there's a more immediate concern: The gas and oil pipelines in the region have no power. They may not get power for another two weeks. Atlanta has not received new gasoline in two days. Retailers typically have a ten day reserve.

So my immediate concern is not how much gas will cost but whether there will be gas to buy at all. I guess we won't be driving to Grandma's for Labor Day after all.

Re:Water City

[ifwm]

"I think that this is global warming begining to show its ugly face."

Of course you do, because that's what you want to see.

Regardless of what you want, hurricanes have hit the area before, this was just bad luck.

Re:Water City

[adagioforstrings]

They DID get hit with a hurricane! They didn't get hit by the eye (though it came fairly close), nor did they get the most powerful northeast quarter of the storm, but this made landfall as a Cat 4 storm. That's incredibly powerful, and hurricane force winds could be felt in New Orleans and across three states! So it did not 'pass safely by' I'm afraid.

Re:Water City

[theonetruekeebler]

Oh, and did I mention that if Atlanta runs out of fuel, then the busiest airport in America runs out of fuel, too?

Re:Water City

[aldousd666]

Well, first of all, in NO, Hurricanes are covered in the Homeowners policy's, normal building insurance, but flood insurance isn't. Flood insurance is only available through the fed down there, and most people, places, and buildings aren't covered. If they had actually been damaged by wind or rain that would be different, but they will not be covered. The reason there is no flood insurance available commerically is because, or so the insurers say (even though we know it's just because they'd have to pay out too often) they don't want to encourage people to build houses and infrastructure in endangered places. I'm not stating my opinion one way or another, but thems the facts.

Re:Water City

[IPFreely]

Global warming has nothing to do with it, this is pure risk management and making informed choices.

Global Warming should have something to do with it though. Take current sea level, add 30 feet, recalculate.

At that level, the coast will be dozens of miles inland of where New Orleans is now. The city will be in a hole out in the middle of the ocean with no surge protection at all. This can be expected before the end of the century.

Now is a pretty good time to take a deep breath and decide whether New Orleans needs to be saved or abandoned. If they do a half assed job of rebuilding, then they will only be doing this again every few years until they are just flat under water and nowhere to go. Even if they do it rght, New Orleans will be just a hole in the ocean with a city in it. Take this as a sign and get out while the getting is good. If they want to do a half assed job of rebuilding the walls, then do it and use the time you have left to salvage anything worth salvaging from the city.

BTW: New Orleans is not the only city within 30 feet of sea level.....

Re:Water City

[Maestro4k]

Down the road? Gas (87 octane unleadded) just went up 15 cents overnight. Same here (in east Tennessee). It went up 16 cents yesterday and another 8 or so today. My Dad somehow heard that it was going up first thing Tuesday morning and warned me so I was able to fill up before the big jump, but that's only a temporary measure and from everything I'm hearing in the news this is only the beginning. They're estimating over $3 a gallon as the national average in a few weeks.

Re:Water City

[ifwm]

"But seriously, you picked Michigan over New Orleans? That's always a poor choice."

He said it was in the summer. Prison is a better choice than New Orleans in the summer.

Re:Water City

[St. Arbirix]

Tenochtitlan.

Later known as Mexico City, but it was a good idea at one point.

Re:Water City

[Nept]

And that's what you're going to get

What, the curtains?

Re:Water City

[ifwm]

"First, completely building over everything would cost significatnly more in both time and money than just pumping out the city" Doing the job correctly often costs more than doing it half-assed. This shouldn't be an issue. "If you just build over the water, then you will have a city built upon an inherintly unstable foundation i.e" Which is the situation they have currently. Finally, I think that many of the people in the city itself would highly object, simply because of all the history that would be destroyed by doing that to the city.

Re:Water City

[deadtree9]

Uh-oh! I guess we all better watch out for the giant cone of cold coming out of the tropicsphere and minute now...

Re:Water City

[ccarson]

Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineerand during my studies in sub-atomic physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be effected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? I've been bouncing this idea in my head for a while now and I can't see why this MAY not be true.

Re:Water City

[wpiman]

If could have harnessed the power of the 200 MPH gusts- then maybe we would have a short term energy surplus.

Perhaps we should not but the wind farm in Nantucket sound but in the Gulf of Mexico.

Re:Water City

[natoochtoniket]

Throwing money at it might actually be the right solution. The National Flood Insurance program has just bought most of St. Louis. The NFIP can forbid building any new structures or making major repairs to existing strucutures that are below a certain altitude. Tear down what's left and make it a national park of something. Build the new city farther inland, on higher land.

Re:Water City

[idego]

Excuse me is this the right post for an argument? No sorry this post if for abuse you horrible little man.

Re:Water City

[Baddas]

There's no way to harness winds of that speed. Most wind farms shut down in anything greater than 25 or 30mph sustained wind speed. 200mph gusts would destroy any hypothetical wind farm that they could build.

Re:Water City

[mcvos]

Nobody fares well against a hurricane of this size, but with proper preparation, the results of such a disaster don't have to be quite as severe as they seem to be in New Orleans.

The first thing, ofcourse, is to build enough good dikes that a single breach won't flood the entire city. Then make sure you have plenty of pumps and backup pumps, and that they will keep working during a flood. Then, when disaster strikes, fill the holes in the dikes, and pump all the water out. It's the flooding that's the real problem here; the longer it lasts, the bigger the damage and death toll.

The known death toll so far is meaningless. Compare the tsunami in the Indian ocean: the initial estimates of the death toll was a fraction of the final figure.

As for international help, had this hit a poorer country, ofcourse the US (and the rest of the world) would help. (See the tsunami again.) But a rich country should be able to deal with something like this. The US can deal with earthquakes in California, Germany is dealing with their constantly flooding rivers of the past couple of years, and in 1953, Netherland dealt with its own giant flood also mostly by itself (although I believe we got a bit of help from France). But if the US really needs help that other nations can provide, I have no doubt that they will. At the moment, it seems they need pumps and engineers, mostly. I wonder if we have and powerful mobile pumps that we could send, but if we do, I hope we will.

mcv.

Re:Water City

[pizen]

Well, it's not that much worse than the rest of the South so I guess I never thought much about it. Plus, New Orleans has the good kind of hurricane to keep cool with.

Re:Water City

[mcvos]

i'm afraid you're misinformed. The Belgians make much better potato chips than we could ever hope to. And they have better mayonaise too. mcv.

Re:Water City

[flosofl]

You cannot get flood insurance when your propperty is below sea level.

Then how does my friend, who lives in New Orleans, have flood insurance? How could her mortgage holder (the bank) require to get flood insurance? I just talked to her on the phone about 20 mins ago and the first thing out of her mouth was "Thank God for flood insurance..."

Perhaps you meant to say you can't get it as part of a comprehensive homeowners policy when you live on a flood plain. She couldn't. She had to get a seperate flood insurance policy.

Re:Water City

[nester]

Please explain just how some treaty, or any action whatsoever by humans, could have prevented this storm.

I can't believe people post such ignorant crap.

Re:Water City

[tscheez]

I agree with some of that.
1. Sustainable energy resources are years away. It is going to be a slow transition from gasoline and oil. While having a sustainable energy source is all good it doesn't help the problem right now and won't help the problem for many years to come.

2. We need to improve our oil infrastructure. More refineries, another port that can dock and unload supertankers. We know this from IT -- redundancy is a good thing.

Also, this is not a global warming problem. We have had hurricanes as strong if not stronger than this one. Camille, Betsy ... most of the strongest hurricanes on record were prior to 1960. Hurricanes in the Atlantic have been known to be on a cycle. There is a long time when there are few hurricanes and they are less severe and then the frequency increases for about 20 years while the salinity of the atlantic is up.

Re:Water City

[p4ul13]

God "Day after tomorrow" sucked.

Re:Water City

[JoeBar]

Step 1. Gondolas

Step 2.

Step 3. Profit

Or.. they could just bring in Kevin Costner

Re:Water City

[rihjol]

Not to mention the offshore platforms being out of commission, or in one case, blown ashore. Supply is going to be short. Costs are going to rocket.

Re:Water City

[ab0mb88]

I have been thinking something similar. I live on the Kansas plains and we typically have dry/still summers, but lately we have been getting strong storms with heavy rain, this has been getting worse every year. This is being blamed on el nino or la nina or whatever the term of the year is, but what if we are mislabeling a larger problem as what we have seen before. There is weather that does not match the pattern we have seen and recorded all over the globe and giant hurricanes are just one more example.

Re:Water City

[moonbender]

Hehe. I'll admit I'm not authoritative on that subject. I guess that leaves you with being home to some of the best electronic music DJs in the world, if that means anything to you. Oh and legalised marihuana, I bet the people in NO would like some of that. ;)

Re:Water City

[MentlFlos]

We need "+1 true"

Re:Water City

[anOminousCow]

From what was said in another post, the ground was sinking at a rate of about 3 feet per century. Now if you built up the land until it was say 10 feet above sea level, that would give you 3 centuries before it would be at sea level. You still would want to have dikes and pumps around to handle storm surges, but they wouldn't have nearly the disastrous consequences.

Now in the mean time, because the land is always gradually sinking, you implement a policy of scheduled rasing of neighborhoods. Say once in 200 years, all the houses in the neighborhood are jacked up 6 feet, dirt is hauled in, basements and streets are rebuilt and things are fine again for another 200 years.

Obviously high-rise buildings can't be jacked up that way, but for those, you just plan on the fact that once every 350 years or so, your bottom floor is filled in with dirt and the next floor up becomes the new bottom floor.

Re:Water City

[CFTM]

With the reality of the melting ice caps and global warming, it actually is an issue for the Dutch. Though they don't get hurricanes, within the next fifty years it is my understanding that they could be in a bit of trouble.

Re:Water City

[Fear the Clam]

That would be because "Orkaan" is the dutch word for "Hurricane".

Nanu nanu.

Re:Water City

[thrillseeker]

Doing the job correctly often costs more than doing it half-assed. This shouldn't be an issue.

It never is an issue when it's not your money.

Re:Water City

[Phleg]

I've always wondered. How do settlements like this actually start, if the only reason they currently exist is to a system a levees and pumps?

Re:Water City

[Paul Jakma]

Now lookup "dyke" on the same service.

Re:Water City

[DavidTC]

Cities that get 'hit' by hurricanes do not exist after that point, as there are not any buildings there anymore, at least not in the path. 73+ mph winds are nothing for building, as evidenced by the fact there are still buildings up. It's the 170 mph winds with cars flying through them that takes out buildings.

And plenty of cities have been hit much harder by hurricanes, and continue to exist just fine. Hurricanes cut a very small path of actual destruction...people and buildings in the path end up gone, people nearby just get really wet.

The problem in New Orleans is flooding, not the hurricane. That type of extreme flooding does not normally, and in fact can't, happen during a hurricane...it requires water behind a levy.

Like I said, any normal city would picking up the pieces right now. Power would be back up at random places, crews would be trying to restore water, any flooding would be almost gone.

The problem is that New Orleans has been holding back nature so long. Now nature has arrived, and it's going to take a long time to remove it.

Re:Water City

[letxa2000]

I agree completely (at least with the part about not rebuilding New Orleans). It was insane to have a lower-than-sea-level city build right on the edge of the ocean, a lake, and a swamp in the middle of a hurricane zone to start with. It's now been destroyed for those very reasons. A bigger tragedy than what happened this week would be to not learn the lesson, rebuild, and have the problem recycle itself in 40 years, 20 years, 10 years, maybe even next year or next month.

Looking at the pictures of pretty much the entire city under water, and recognizing that most of the dwellings are made of wood, and recognizing that wood doesn't like to retain its structural integrity after days, weeks, or months underwater, I think we need to recognize that most of the structures are going to have to be demolished anyway. We're probably watching the death of a city. Amazing, really.

It goes agaisnt human nature--or at least against American nature--but I think at times like this one has to make a sensible, non-emotional decision and realize that this city should not be rebuilt. At least not at its current location.

Re:Water City

[DavidTC]

Ah, okay, I misunderstood.

But you still can't blame that on 'below sea level' silliness. That can happen in any coastal city that has old buildings near the shore.

Re:Water City

[MemeRot]

There were many apartment complexes and such that were built like this. It just gave the water a nice hunk of steel to slam into walls and supports.

Re:Water City

[ifwm]

Except it IS my money, as I'm a taxpayer. I would certainly prefer they do the job right one time, for one cost, rather than implementing stopgap measures that will cost more in the long run.

That being said, if I had my way they wouldn't rebuild in such an unstable location at ll.

Re:Water City

[Shakes268]

Your favorite movie is "Day After Tomorrow" isn't it? You know, easy way to solve the global warming problem - we need to nip it in the bud, strike the source. PUT OUT THE SUN! We'd be much cooler, no more worry about seas encroaching and pollution wouldn't matter! After all, we do know that the sun is getting hotter. Man can only do so much its nature that is out of control (sun getting hotter, hurricanes, tornados, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanos). I'm just glad that by not using hairspray in the morning I'm doing my part.

Re:Water City

[MemeRot]

Flood insurance is only offered by the federal government: http://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/pages/index.j sp/.

It's a branch of FEMA. I don't know why FEMA would encourage people to stay in flood prone areas though, when they know they'll just have to come rescue them when it floods.

Re:Water City

[NetFusion]

The lack of silt replenishment problem is vexxing.

Perhaps a series of controlled silty floods could be executed to raise the city's foundations before rebuilding commences. This would serverly push back the move back date, but would put them in a better situation in the future. What is the deposition height per flood? How many floods would it take to make up the 10ft below sealevel shortfall they have currently?

Seems mandating all new structures be built on adjustable extendable pilings so they can be ratcheted up as the city sinks and in preperation for the next uncontrolled flood would be sesnible.

Re:Water City

[letxa2000]

I doubt it. Water is cheap. Oil is not. That's why you see oil pipelines and you don't see long-distance water pipelines (other than the natural water pipelines which are commonly known as rivers).

Re:Water City

[wunderhorn1]

Actually, first floor parking garages are quite commonly built now, as it's cheaper than building underground garages.

Re:Water City

[Oculus Habent]

I'm not sure New Orleans can provide a cast large enough for a Kevin Costner epic.

Re:Water City

[robertjw]

Great, more people coming to Colorado. Just what we need.

Re:Water City

[lgw]

Ummmmm .. near ... that's one way to put it. ;)

Re:Water City

[hackstraw]

In fact, I rather hope they build on top of the rubble instead of clearing it away.

Thats a damn good idea. I really like it when they use concrete and whatnot as a foundation for coral reefs.

I'm a much bigger fan of reuse vs recycle.

Re:Water City

[AnObfuscator]

uhhhh?

first you say:
Cities that get 'hit' by hurricanes do not exist after that point, as there are not any buildings there anymore,

and then you say:
And plenty of cities have been hit much harder by hurricanes, and continue to exist just fine.

Ok, um, which is it? does a city getting "hit" by a hurricane exist or not? Is this some sort of existentialist thing? I don't get it.

Please let me know soon, because my hometown was directly hit with the eyewall of 3 hurricanes last year, and I need you to tell me if it still exists or not!

Re:Water City

[subgrappler]

"And the mosquitoes. Mosquitoes suck." they also swallow.

Re:Water City

[OreoCookie]

From the EPA site you linked to:

Over the next century, sea level is most likely to rise 55-60 cm along most of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts.
 
Where the hell did you get 30 feet from?

Re:Water City

[cev]

You may get wind storms, but you (and a large percentage of Americans who are directly threatened by them) are grossly underestimating the power of a Katrina-size hurricane. Selected statistics from Noaa:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/tcfaqHED.html

Sustained winds of 120+ KPH over a 350-km wide circle; sustained winds of 250 KPH over a 50-km wide circle, with gusts even higher; as much as two meters of rain in one day; a 6-meter storm surge (akin to a tsunami); a total dissipated power of 6.0 x 10^14 Watts.

People foolish enough to weather out even a modest hurricane are often severely traumatized by the experience. If you think you are tough, you are welcome to come try one out this month. Our national guardsmen would be proud to rescue you.

CV

Re:Water City

[hans_e]

Worldwide, although ocean temperatures have risen, the overall number and strength of cyclones have not.

Ahh, but total energy consumption by hurricanes over the last few decades has increased worldwide because they are lasting longer. Here's a quote from an interview with Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

"[When you look at] their intensity and you look at how long the hurricanes lasted and you measure the total amount of energy released by the hurricanes, that is going up decidedly in most of the world's oceans, and we have tried very hard to see whether this might be an artifact of the way hurricanes are measured or the data, but no matter what you do, you get this signal. And that signal lies on top of regional phenomena."

Re:Water City

[Ced_Ex]

It is the right post, although it refers to a very obscure fact that Walt Disney World in Florida was built on reclaimed swamp land.

And.. No sorry this post if for abuse you horrible little man.

What are you trying to say?!

Re:Water City

[Anonymous Coward]

It is God punishing the red states.

Re:Water City

[ChrisMaple]

The area around Mt. St. Helens was fairly empty before the eruption. No big deal if no-one can build there. New Orleans is heavily built up; forbidding construction there requires much more consideration.

Re:Water City

[iminplaya]

Don't want an oil refinery in your area? Suffer the consequences.

Yeah, bright, clear skies can be a real hazard. We don't need more refineries. We need more alternatives. I shouldn't have to put up with dangerous machinery in my back yard just so you* can enjoy a three hour commute every day in your* monster truck. There are many here that are telling content producers to find another way of doing business. The same goes for the rest of us. It's time to find another method of transporting our bodies from here to there. The present method is obsolete, just like their business model. Why we continue to cling to and fight wars over this, is disturbing at least.

*editorial

Re:Water City

[jmrSudbury]

Perhaps I don't understand this since I live in a city that is on bedrock 348 metres (1142 ft) above sea level, but when the silt settles, where does it go? Is the land slowly washing into the Gulf of Mexico? Is it the weight of the buildings and roads that is causing settling faster than it has over the past few hundred years? If the flooding actually deposits more than it washes away, then there will be an erosion of the mainland. That silt in the flood waters has to come from somewhere. Are the southern states becoming flatter or more trenched?

Re:Water City

[IPFreely]

30 Rise is if all arctic and antarctic glaciers melt. Its not on that site. I was looking for a map of Lousiana, not a dissertation on global warming. It's out there, go find it. I've done enough searching.

Re:Water City

[thrillseeker]

Except it IS my money, as I'm a taxpayer.

And it's also the money of the other taxpayers - who may not agree at what the money is spent on, or the reasons for it. If it's not in the Constitution, i.e. the necessary "defense of the nation" requirement, then involuntary tax money shouldn't be part of the equation.

I think we're agreeing though - if some group of people voluntarily want to rebuild in that location, then let 'em at it - but don't require those who think it's unwise to participate.

Re:Water City

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Thanks man, I wish you did too because those who did have mod points appear to be without a sense of humour.

Re:Water City

[tscheez]

has it occurred to you that without oil right now, our economy goes down hill and fast?

People are not able to just drop their cars and buy an electric. one they do not exist for sale, two if they did, the range is about 100 miles, and it is still based on oil and coal -- unless you want nucleaer plants built which is the only technology mature enough at this point to actually work. There will not be an abrupt transition, it wont happen, we need to expand the oil infrastructure and address the vulnerabilities that exist in that system. I think there should be a shift in our energy sources but it cant happen all at once, it will have to be a smooth, gradual change over many years.

Re:Water City

[ifwm]

"I think we're agreeing though - if some group of people voluntarily want to rebuild in that location, then let 'em at it - but don't require those who think it's unwise to participate"

Exactly. It strikes me as silly to continually allow people to make poor choices by subsidizing the cleanup after said choices.

Re:Water City

[dffuller]

So, assuming you have a car with a 15 gallon tank, you managed to save less than 4 dollars. Good for you. I don't understand this mentality at all.

Re:Water City

[Rei]

The idea has already been proposed in Jordan and Israel, and if it weren't for the Intifada and other elements of regional instability, might already have been implemented.

As for Libya, the Qattara Depression is about 7,000 square miles in area. For comparison, the Mediterranean Sea is about 970,000 square miles.

Re:Water City

[ZvlvLord]

Who needs hurricanes ?

http://www.metoffice.com/education/secondary/stude nts/flood.html

In the south-west of the Netherlands on 18 November 1421, water from the North Sea swept through 72 villages and 10,000 people died. Again in 1570, 1825, 1894, 1916 and 1953, disastrous breaches of Dutch coastal defences occurred.

or from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Flood_of_19 53

In the southern provinces of Zeeland, Zuid-Holland, and Noord-Brabant, flooding of islands and polders killed 1,835 people and forced the evacuation of 70,000 more. Ten thousand animals drowned, and 4,500 buildings were destroyed. Floods covered 9% of Dutch agricultural land, and sea water inundated 2,000 km of polders. Damage was estimated at 895 million Dutch Guilders, an enormous amount of money at the time.
----------

Re:Water City

[gcatullus]

What I find even more humorous is commenting on the lack of humour in the Monty Python thread, with a comment that sounds like a Monty Python quote itself!

Re:Water City

[sfm]

> The people living downstream of the river then suffer freak flash floods

Not a whole lot downstream of New Orleans to worry about flooding.

Re:Water City

[rev063]

Of course, as of October 1, declaring bankruptcy isn't likely to solve a Nawlins refugee's problems. Bankruptcy rules will change so that it's no longer possible to write off most forms of consumer debt. And how would you like it, if after losing your home to the hurricane, you were forced to go to mandatory credit counseling?

Re:Water City

[default luser]

Exactly.

I went to Puerto Rico over the summer, and one interesting aspect of their architecture is the prevalance of stone and metal structure, especially near the coasts.

Their designs typically have no glass (unless you're in touristy areas, which are more westernized)...windows are covered by metal slats which can be closed when the weather gets bad. Entire living areas of houses are open air, with bars to keep out intruders.

We could learn a thing or two from these folks, if we want to build in hurricane country for the long term.

Re:Water City

[fatgav]

Count yourselves lucky! I just did the calculations and our fuel costs the equvalent of just under $6 a gallon! (GBP 0.90 / litre)

Re:Water City

[Carnildo]

River silt is a very low-density material, with a high percentage of water. As long as the river floods on a regular basis, fresh silt deposits will more than replace erosional losses, and will keep the water content up. New Orleans was originally built at the mouth of the Mississippi River, but 300+ years of silt has extended the river almost a hundred miles past it.

Wall off the plains with a dike and start building on them, and the land will start sinking. Since the river no longer floods, the silt will start to dry out and compact. Building makes this go faster: the extra weight squeezes water out, and pumps to keep basements dry also remove water from the soil. The net result for something like New Orleans is that the city sinks, possibly as fast as an inch or two per year.

As a side effect, silt will only be deposited at the mouth of the river, and the river delta will get longer but not wider, reducing the protection against storm surge.

Re:Water City

[pclminion]

That will never happen in this day and age, given current security concerns. Two words: "car bomb."

Yeah that makes sense, a car bomb is WAY more destructive than a Category 4 hurricane.

There are already buildings throughout the world with parking on the ground floor. Why would a prevalence of them make them more attractive as a target? Does building more skyscrapers increase the chance of another 9/11? It just doesn't follow.

Re:Water City

[tabrnaker]

You do know that it's all related. In our semi-closed system it HAS to be all related. Anybody who says otherwise just doesn't understand physics.

Re:Water City

[NASC]

The mainland is eroding by wind and water but that really isn't the problem with the 'sinking' of New Orleans. Silt erodes from the mountains and the plains all over the country and washes into streams and rivers. The streams and rivers combine and carry the silt a long way. When silt is deposited on land by the river as the flood water recede, the layer of silt is very loose (unconsolidated). Over time, the silt will compress or densify mostly due its self-weight as well as due to the weight any other structures like buildings. In silt, this is a VERY slow process and is slowed down by shallow groundwater. New Orleans is 'sinking' because the silt is slowly densifying and the levees are blocking the Mississippi River from depositing additional material. The levees are also speeding up the flow of the river, allowing the silt suspended in the water to travel farther out into the Gulf before the water slows and drops it in a delta. In a sense, the levees which protect New Orleans are also causing its demise as it forces the silt delta to move further out into the Gulf.

Re:Water City

[smellsofbikes]

IIRC from reading John McPhee's "Control Of Nature", bedrock, under New Orleans, is about two miles down. It's sitting on a very deep pile of silt.

It's going to be a little tricky sinking piles that deep for every building.

Re:Water City

[Zak3056]

There are already buildings throughout the world with parking on the ground floor. Why would a prevalence of them make them more attractive as a target? Does building more skyscrapers increase the chance of another 9/11? It just doesn't follow.

I'm not saying that I agree with the logic, but it's a fact that "anti-terror" thinking dominates the actions of governmental organizations in the US these days.

They build tank traps in front of government buildings. Underground parking? Forget about it.

While individuals may choose to build as the grandparent suggests, on any large scale it would have to be forced by government action--writing it into the local building codes, for example. And these days, there is absolutely no chance of something like that passing the terrorism bar.

Re:Water City

[adagioforstrings]

73 mph winds are nothing? Is that why "mere" 55-63 mph winds "uproot trees" and "cause considerable structural damage? New Orleans experienced 140 mph winds.
Flooding indeed caused the most destruction in New Orleans, because much of the city is below sea level and because the levees broke. But they broke because of the strain from the rain and winds and storm surge. Caused by being hit by a hurricane.
Cloud cover for Katrina was as large as Mississippi and Alabama combined, and there was a lot of rain in all of that. A direct result is flooding, which is just as much a part of the hurricane as the storm center.
Several of your points about the flooding are mostly fine, it just really bugs me that an "Interesting" and "Insightful" comment begins with "New Orleans wasn't hit by a hurricane"--that simply is not true.

Re:Water City

[jcr]

Why bother getting Libya's okay?

Well, because it would be rather churlish to steamroller them after they gave up their nuclear program and made restitution for the Lockerbie bombings.

-jcr

Re:Water City

[toddbu]

Bankruptcy rules will change so that it's no longer possible to write off most forms of consumer debt.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. It's mainly the banks and other credit card lenders who have pushed this legislation through. What I don't think they're thinking about it what the long term impact will be. If you think about it for just a minute, you'll realize that there could be a huge resulting backlash. I picture this scenario - lots of people get into trouble with really high interest rates but can't escape the debt. En masse, these folks say "the government should have protected me". Congress, pandering to the squeakiest wheel, enacts new legislation to control interest rates, thereby regulating what is currently an unregulated industry when it comes to rates and fees. Unlike previous Supreme Court decisions on usury laws which effective said one state can't set rates for another, this time the Court agrees that Congress is regulating interstate commerce. Ultimately the banks lose and the mafia reclaims their old domain of lending to people who can't find money elsewhere.

In case you can't tell, I think that this was really bad legislation. And this is coming from a person who is socially/economically conservative.

Re:Water City

[Marillion]

Oh God that's funny!

Important Slashdot safety tip, boy and girls, make sure your morning coffee has kicked in before typing! Either that or my Freudian Slip is showing.

Quite funny none the less.

To the spelling nazi's, I checked: "dyke" and "dike" are different spellings for the same word. Much like "tire" and "tyre". In the US, however, the "dike" spelling is almost never associated with lesbians.

Re:Water City

[sesshomaru]

Larry King interviewed Satan on his radio/TV program. At one point during the interview, King asked Satan to describe the foulest deed he'd ever done. Satan refused to name one, pointing out that there had been so much destruction over the years, so many lives cut short, and so many wars and calamities that none stood out. But Larry King kept pestering. 'Surely, if you think hard enough, there must be one dastardly deed you are most proud of.' Satan thought for a moment, his eyes brightened, and he replied, 'Well, yes. I guess if I have to pick just one particularly evil thing I'm proudest of, it would be this: Several years ago, I invented credit cards.'

Re:Water City

[mfrank]

I don't think Mardi Gras in a dry Texas panhandle county would be very fun. It should at least be a wet county :)

Re:Water City

[Johnny5000]

They're estimating over $3 a gallon as the national average in a few weeks.

Here in Indiana,I just saw gas at $3.19/gal.
One of my friends just reported it's up to $3.28.

Re:Water City

[NDPTAL85]

Um no. Lets spend the money on ways that create greenhouse gasses and restore New Orleans exactly where it is, but just stronger than before.

Can you even realize the insanity of your statement? Try telling the residents of NO that you want to move their city just to prevent fossil fuels from being used. You are a mad man.

Re:Water City

[MikeFM]

Obviously, you missed my entire point that ALL areas experience periods of flood and drought and that by spreading the burden across the whole country you could dramaticly reduce both these effects.

You could put thousands of people to work creating such a system so most of the money would be recycled right back into our economy. That combined with not having to pay billions of dollars in flood and drought recovery all the time would quickly make the system pay for itself.

Nature is just some crappy system that was here before we were. That doesn't mean that it's designed to do what we need it to do. Expecting to use rivers to control flooding and pump water over massive distances (uphill) is just not going to work very well.

Re:Water City

[MikeFM]

True. We could use some of the wide-open desert regions to build massive water purification plants. Pump extra water back out into the ocean and pump in ocean water as needed, purify it, and pump it where it's needed.

Re:Water City

[MikeFM]

We could do it secretly and see if they noticed. And just buy up all the beach-front land before flooding and hope they didn't notice.

Re:Water City

[Captain Nitpick]

The refineries aren't that badly damaged. The problem is that they have no power.

The more fundamental issue is that the workers' homes are badly damaged. It's hard to get productivity out of someone whose home is a pile of rubble in three feet of water and is living in a shelter 200 miles away.

Re:Water City

[maxpup979]

At least it isnt the texans or californians this time...:)

Re:Water City

[robertjw]

They're already here.

Re:Water City

[CaptainCarrot]

What does agriculture have to do with this?

Re:Water City

[DavidTC]

The point I am trying to make, and people seem intent on nitpicking is that 'From what I understand, their problem is they were hit with a fucking hurricane. ' is simply NOT TRUE.

It's akin to, for a silly example, someone laying on top of a car that's driving around, and getting hit by another car. Yes, the technical problem may be they got hit by a car, but the actual problem, the one that made it fifty times worse than anyone else in exactly that situtation, is that they were laying on top of the damn car instead of being safely inside it.

Likewise, New Orleans' problem is that they are under sea level, with water surrounding them, barely held back by jury-rigged levies and pumps. The hurricane just knocked over the house of cards.

Anyone else who got hit exactly the same amount by a hurricane of this power would be, at this point, holding memorial services and calculating repair costs. New Orleans is currently trying to locate people standed on roofs. There are still dead people floating around!

I've seen towns with paths through them completely demolished by hurricanes, and the rest of the town is operating the next day if it was just wind, or a few days later if water flooded in.

The problem New Orleans faces is not hurricane damage, it's not even really 'flooding', as flooding implies abnormally high water that will receed. The problem New Orleans faces is 'being under the damn ocean'.

Re:Water City

[rodgerd]

Unfortunately, as this article notes, efforts to have wetlands loss curtailed have run afoul of politics. No doubt too many people committed to the idea that "environmentalism = bad" to think about whether their knee is actually jerking in their own best interests.

Re:Water City

[DavidTC]

Actually, that would might hurt things.

See, the big problem is that silt settles. Putting new, unsettled silt would raise the land, but the buildings would start sinking must faster, because that silt isn't settled at all.

Or, at least, that's what I think would happen.

Although part of the problem isn't 'silt settling', per se, it's pumping water out. See, if you let the water collect, the city floods (Duh. Where would it drain to?), so they're constantly pumping water out of the water table.

However, removing the water makes the ground settle faster!

Re:Water City

[Thuktun]

That will never happen in this day and age, given current security concerns. Two words: "car bomb."

Since car bombs parked on the street are so ineffective.

Re:Water City

[theufo]

From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:

    dyke
              n 1: offensive terms for a lesbian who is noticeably masculine
                        [syn: {butch}, {dike}]
              2: a barrier constructed to contain the flow of water or to
                    keep out the sea [syn: {dam}, {dike}, {levee}]
              v : enclose with a dike; "dike the land to protect it from
                      water" [syn: {dike}]

Surprise surprise! They're *syn*onymous!

Re:Water City

[EtherealStrife]

You could put thousands of people to work creating such a system so most of the money would be recycled right back into our economy. That combined with not having to pay billions of dollars in flood and drought recovery all the time would quickly make the system pay for itself.

LOL, so we should spent 1000x the initial cost (plus millions -- billions? -- each year maintaining it) to save billions of dollars in flood and drought recovery "all the time." I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were Republican.

As for droughts, they're hardly an issue these days (atleast not enough to justify such an expenditure).

Take my word -- as an engineer -- that such a system is completely ludicrous and even impossible (to the degree that you're demanding). I make no expectations for rivers to "control flooding and pump water over massive distances (uphill)", and would appreciate a quote to back up your assertion that *I* made such a claim. As for the flooding aspects, you seem to have completely ignored the final words of my previous post, so I will say them again.

"Oh, and if your apparent humor / sarcasm is directed at the other end of the pipelines, it doesn't seem to be feasible to pump flood waters out West and would be a downright bargain (compared to the System) to have pumping/irrigation systems set up on a smaller scale: to handle -- on a city by city basis -- emergency crises and nothing more. Which is pretty much where New Orleans is at right now."

Micro *is* better in this case, and a nation-wide extension (or replacement?) of what is currently in place is not only pointless, but a horribly gargantuan expenditure (you did catch the *TRILLIONS* of dollars part, didn't you? And that was lowballing it, if anything). To supply just Southern California the California Aqueduct is MASSIVE, and to have a water transportation system in place that could support the ENTIRE United States (for both its flood AND drought needs) is downright insanity. For perspective (from TFAs):

California Aqueduct:
"A typical section has a concrete-lined channel 40 feet wide at the base and an average water depth of about 30 feet. The widest section of the aqueduct is 110 feet and the deepest is 32.8 feet. The size of the channel varies according to how much capacity that section of the aqueduct was projected to need. The pumping and channel capacities at the start of the aqueduct are 10,670 and 10,300 cubic feet per second (cfs), respectively. The largest channel capacity is 13,100 cfs and the largest pumping plant capacity is 15,450 cfs. For perspective, an Olympic-sized swimming pool with dimensions of 2 X 25 X 50 meters holds about 88,000 cubic feet."

Trans-Alaska Pipeline:
"The single 48 inch (1.22 m) diameter pipeline was built between March 27, 1975 and May 31, 1977 at a cost of around US$8 billion. The pipe was constructed in six sections by five different contractors employing 21,000 people at the peak of work; 31 were killed in accidents during construction."

Re:Water City

[MikeFM]

Yes, yes. The money is much better spent making or protesting war, providing roads for our 10mpg ($4gal) gas hogs, providing cops to arrest drug users, whores, and various other harmless criminals, and whatever other useless things our tax dollar is going towards. Why plan ahead for extreme weather conditions? Why create thousands of jobs ranging from untrained workers to skilled engineers?

TRILLIONS of dollars really doesn't matter because we're paying the money to ourselves and all reaping the benifits. A nation-wide water system would be more useful to me than the stupid interstate system, a military, etc. All these things are expensive and somewhat stupid but they come in handy when you need them.

Of course you're probably the type of person that since you have a well thinks it's stupid to spend MILLIONS on a city-wide water system. As long as your well doesn't dry up or get to polluted you're all set. No reason to spend money on a more reliable system. The same with sewage huh? You have your own system (doubtlessly leaking into your water system) so why bother with a shared system?

Of course it's a big project that might take years and trillions of dollars to implement. Is that really a reason not to do it? You can't be a very advanced engineer if you decide a project is impossible just because it's big. Most areas have water systems already. Just find a workable solution for connecting those systems together and you're set. Nobody said to just throw away the existing infrastructure.

I'm sure if somebody proposed to build the Internet, as we know it today, 30 years ago they would have been ridiculed and told it was foolish, impossible, expensive, and that nobody would ever use it. Yet it has become one of the most important developments in our species' history.

Re:Water City

[Paul Jakma]

Yep, that's my point.

I suspect "dyke" is the longer standing version of that spelling, given it parallels the old version of the word in dutch. It's the version I've always used in english, which makes me think that's how we were taught to spell it in school (most of my schooling having been in the Irish education system ;) ).

Re:Water City

[Behrooz]

Well, if you'd RTFA, human activity definitely increased the destructiveness of the storm by peeling away natural barriers to flooding:

Loss of the coastal marshes that dampened earlier storm surges puts the city at increasing risk to hurricanes. Eighty years of substantial river leveeing has prevented spring flood deposition of new layers of sediment into the marshes, and a similarly lengthy period of marsh excavation activities related to oil and gas exploration and transportation canals for the petrochemical industry have threatened marsh integrity. Sea level rise is expected to further accelerate the loss of these valuable coastal wetlands, the loss of which jeopardizes the fabric of Louisiana communities by threatening the harvesting of natural resources, an integral part of coastal culture. Concerted efforts by state and federal agencies are underway to develop appropriate restoration technologies and adequate funding to implement them.

On a more global scale, human activity is the most plausible cause for the increased rate of sea level rise which has been recorded during the last century. Given the risks associated with major climate change and environmental damage (see above for a minor example), it seems reasonable to pursue responsible methods of minimizing environmental impact now to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic failures in the future. I'm a technological optimist, but tempting fate like that merely to avoid marginal impacts on our current lifestyle is stupid.

Re:Water City

[pegasustonans]

If they do a half assed job of rebuilding, then they will only be doing this again every few years

No. If they do a half-assed job of rebuilding, then, the next time this happens, The Big Easy will become The Big Ghost Town.

Make no mistake, they have one chance to rebuild.

Re:Water City

[EtherealStrife]

Look, do the research or ask someone else. A friend of mine was just put in charge of Flood Control for the city of Riverside (we went to Henry Samueli at uci together). I consulted him after your response to my first post on the subject. He laughed.

I'm a liberal, so don't give me that shit about misspent funds. The problem is that such a system would be a money sink, and would not improve upon anything. You're thinking backwards, technologically. It's fun to think up 5 mile long warships or uber-space stations that handle all kinds of scientific research in one giant package, but that isn't the way technology/innovation goes.

"You can't be a very advanced engineer if you decide a project is impossible just because it's big. Just find a workable solution for connecting those systems together and you're set. Nobody said to just throw away the existing infrastructure."

I'm saying it's impossibly large for the relative gain. WHY create Uber Water Works? What possible purpose could this serve that is not handled by present systems? Most of these systems ARE connected RIGHT NOW (to some degree).

In conclusion: I don't object to new ideas, just stupid ones. I'm sorry, but you're simply ignoring the facts that I've tried to present as patiently/clearly as I can, while berating *me*. And now what you're claiming is needed is something almost identical to what is currently in place. .... I give up on you. :) If you're serious about this and still don't understand why your idea cannot be implemented (or that it has already been implemented, in your most recent case) then contact your local water district and ask to sit down with someone. That's the only thing that'll get this out of your system, it seems. My own district headquarters is quite friendly (so long as you pay your bills on time :P), and has done similar things in the past for local concerned citizens.

Good luck

Re:Water City

[MikeFM]

A single monolithic monster system is only one way to go. You can build large systems out of lots of little systems too. (Okay, I learned engineering from legos.)

There are lots of problems with isolated local systems. Again the two most obvious being local drought and local water table pollution.

It's like the electrical grid. Having a single massive power plant in the middle of no where pumping out power to the entire nation through a massive grid is a bad idea. Having a nation-wide grid that connects together local power plants, dams, personal power sources (solar, wind, etc), and maybe even a few massive plants in the middle of no where is a good idea or would be if it were implemented well. (The current grid pretty much sucks.) A massive shared grid allows problems to be worked around and resources to be moved from where they are created to where they are needed. Why is water any different?

Re:Water City

[EtherealStrife]

You're comparing electricity to water ... *shudders*

The problem with water is that we consume MASSIVE quantities of the stuff. To be able to redirect a sufficient amount to do what you're suggestion on a national scale requires a large $$ investment in pumping facilities, as well as the ongoing costs of having them running 24/7 (or you need VERY flat terrain + smaller and less frequent pumps; see: california aqueduct).
Southern California has a water system close to that which you're describing, but it relies on the flat open desert regions between populated regions. There's very little redundancy AFAIK, but it is connected (most of the state is one gigantic city, allowing for this).

*cough* I wasn't kidding about the water district. :P

Oh and on a sidenote I agree with you on the power grids that are currently in place. Horrendous system, much of which needs to be R&Red rather than the current practice of 'upgrading' every few years. Alaska of all places has some of the best telephone and power setups of the entire U.S., because of the If It Works Don't Fix It attitude that's been taken in the lower 48.

Re:Water City

[RockDoctor]

I don't think that place in Libya/Egypt that is below sea level is as big as the Mediterrean. It's more like as big as the Great Salt Lake or the Aral Sea.
Quattara depression, or some spelling vaguely like that. 29.5N 26E to 30N 28.5E, approximately. Average is about 25m below sea level. I don't think it's even the scale of the Great Salt Lake, let alone the Aral Sea.

Re:Water City

[UnapprovedThought]

Lets [sic] spend the money on ways that create greenhouse gasses

May I ask why you want to create more greenhouse gases? What, are you trying to trigger an ice age by speeding up the warming process?

Try telling the residents of NO that you want to move their city just to prevent fossil fuels from being used...

Well, that's not exactly what I said. It sounds like you misunderstood somewhere. I know no one will want to move NO, but it seems like the lesser evil if it is going to be under 30ft of water every time a storm passes by. Even moving every single resident onto a cruise ship anchored nearby will cost less than what it sounds you are suggesting.

Re:Water City

[NDPTAL85]

You are presenting a very logical suggestion to a very emotional situation. People don't take kindly to suggestions of surrendering their homes to anyone or anything. The natural instinct is to stay and fight it out. I'd do the same thing even though I am thousands of miles away from those folks.

I'm not trying to trigger a speeding up of the warming process. I'm just trying to point out that we really don't have any really effective means of energy production other than the ones we already have which are mostly based on fossil fuels. You're not going to get much down relying on wind/solar power.

Re:Water City

[Ihlosi]

I'm just trying to point out that we really don't have any really effective means of energy production other than the ones we already have which are mostly based on fossil fuels.

We do have, however, plenty of ways to use the energy we produce more efficiently and waste less of it which will, at most, cause only minor inconvenience.

Re:Water City

[UnapprovedThought]

You are presenting a very logical suggestion to a very emotional situation. People don't take kindly to suggestions of surrendering their homes

Of course not, but what do you want me to do, tell people it's a great place to rebuild, when all the evidence says otherwise?

You're not going to get much down relying on wind/solar power.

In Denmark, they already produce about 20% of their national energy needs from wind power, so it may not be as impossible as you've been led to believe.

Re:Water City

[jcr]

We could do it secretly and see if they noticed.

Heh..

"Earth moving equipment? What earth moving equipment? Oh, we're just digging a couple of swimming pools. Nothing to see here..."

Another fascinating idea I've seen is building a dam across the straits of Gibraltar, and powering most of Europe from turbines driven by the inflow of water to the Mediterranean.

-jcr

Re:Water City

[DavidTC]

This was the town hit by Katrina as it came ashore.

Re:Water City

[Guppy06]

You live on the west coast, don't you? A huricane is not a nice, neat, compact tornado. New Orleans experienced sustained wind speeds of 125 mph (category 3) with gusts even higher. It experienced a major hurricane.

In other posts you seem to think that hurricanes cause most of their destruction by winds, believing that 175 mph winds "blow around cars." While hurricane winds do pick up and throw a lot of debris, none of it is cars; after all, many cars are designed to go that fast down the road and don't get picked up and tossed around by their own drag. The only time a car gets picked up by a hurricane is when said hurricane triggers a tornado.

What does cost most of the damage is flooding, from the rain and the storm surge. The places that you refer to in other posts were wiped out by the flooding. Rising water lifted up buildings and barges and such and moved them inland, otfen depositing them onto other buildings. Water is just a little bit more dense than air and just a little bit goes a long way.

As for the water, the area that the eye passes over actually has some of the least problems with flooding. Water rises in the eye purely on account to the very low static air pressure lifting the water up. However, the arms of the hurricane also cause dynamic pressure by blowing the water towards land (while also dumping rain on the area that doesn't happen in the eye). On the Gulf Coast, it is consistently worse to be on the east side of the eye than under the eye itself, where the winds blow northerly, blowing the gulf on shore. This is what happened to Gulfport and Biloxi: the eye made landfall at Pearl River, the MS/LA border, west of these cities.

Being on the west side brings southerly winds, which would be "better" in most cases, however New Orleans has water to the north as well: Lake Pontchartrain. Category 3 force winds blew Lake Pontchartrain into, against, and ultimately over the levees on the north of the city. If the eye had passed west of New Orleans, it would have been the Mississippi River (south of the city) that would have been blown into the city (and the lake would have washed out cities like Slidell and Mandeville), and if the eye had passed over New Orleans this flooding may not have been as bad as it is now (winds would be blowing west, then east, with nothing but low static pressure at the eye to lift water).

Part of the continued flooding problem comes from the fact that New Orleans continues to be downriver from places that got rained on by the storm later on, but the river normally doens't touch Lake Pontchartrain, and it was the lake (really a tidal pool) that broke the levee in several places.

So, to sum up, a hurricane is much bigger than a tornado; winds can break windows but not knock down (brick/concrete/etc.) buildings, while water can; flooding is worse to the side of the eye, where water isn't just sucked up by low pressure but blown over by winds as well; and New Orleans was flooded even though it was on the "safe" side of the eye because it has water on both sides.

Try sitting through a tropical storm some time before opening your mouth on what a hurricane can and cannot do.

Re:Water City

[iminplaya]

HA...'ah...'ah! You, my dear friend most definitely define the anonymous coward. And your timing is impeccable. I believe you are needed in the middle east to secure the supply. Seeing as that little club of yours needs so much of it.

Re:Water City

[DavidTC]

Jesus Christ, no one can read what I'm actually saying, can they?

For the record, I live in Georgia, although luckily pretty far from the sea, and I know exactly what a hurricane does, and they do, in fact, take down buildings. I personally saw the results of Hurricane Andrew. There's a town in Mississippi that simply isn't there anymore, either. I gave a link above.

Anything less than that, the hurricane 'missed', for sufficiently damaging values of 'missed', and you just have to cope with surges and flooding for the interval of the hurricane. And random tornados, but you have to cope with those anywhere.

The point I was trying to explain, but really should give up as no one here has the ability to read, is that New Orleans has managed to invent a new category, and their problem wasn't the hurricane at all. The problem in New Orleans isn't 'storm surges' or 'high winds' or 'tornados' or even 'flattened buildings'.

The problem is that the hurricane broke the dikes. That's it, that's the whole problem. The hurricane itself is a non-problem. Yes, it causes storm surges on the 'wrong' side because of the lake, and in fact that's what broke the dikes.

But a few small bombs could have done exactly the same thing. New Orleans problem isn't that it got 'hit with a fucking hurricane'.

Re:Water City

[iminplaya]

Modern agriculture yields...

I'm not sure what the exact percentage is, but I believe that 20-30% is used to feed livestock. A lot is quite literally thrown away to keep prices up. Good farming practices could eliminate the need for petrol based chemicals. Farm machinery could use the methane generated by the compost heaps that are very abundant. As far as I can tell, there's a hell of a lot of untapped energy there. I would have to refer you to this guy for information on the possibilities.

Re:Water City

[Guppy06]

"The problem is that the hurricane broke the dikes. That's it, that's the whole problem. The hurricane itself is a non-problem. Yes, it causes storm surges on the 'wrong' side because of the lake, and in fact that's what broke the dikes."

And what you don't understand is that they weren't dykes, they're levees. Dykes have constant pressure on them, while 90% of the time levees don't have water up against them. They're designed to hold back water temporarily during times of flooding. Without the storm surge, there would have been no water to rush into the city if somebody had blown them up. Wikipedia has a picture of a levee just outside of New Orleans under normal circumstances, but as can be seen from the news footage the water was high enough to wash over them, and at least one of the breaks I've seen appear to be breaks in the floodwall running along the top of the levee proper.

If you blew up the levee last month, there would have been no water on the other side to rush into the city. The water that eroded away the levee and eventually poured into New Orlans came from the storm surge.

And since you seem to define "the hurricane" to be the high winds themselves and not what they do to water, then "the hurricane" didn't break the levee.

Re:Water City

[Decker-Mage]

How the Dutch cope with this is pretty simple. They have these large concrete barges with air bladders that they move to points of imminent levy failure and then void the bladders to allow water to flood them. Poof! Instant blockage. Why we don't have anything like that is beyond me save the NIH (Hot Invented Here) syndrome as I've pointed out in all to many places. Sorry, as a systems engineer, this is something as old as Rome given my reading of history.

Re:Water City

[tswann01]

Here is a map of New Orleans, zoomed in on the Superdome. The roof used to be all white. Google has special Hurricane Katrina satellite photos from Wednesday, August 31.

Re:Water City

[saskboy]

Human nature being what it is, the city will be rebuilt right where this disaster happened. Yes it's the death of a city, but humans are pig-headed and will rebuild in the same spot just to try to prove a point against nature. Sometimes lessons learned can prevent an exact reoccurance, and the next disaster might not be quite as defined, but they'll rebuild the city, mark my words.

Besides if they built in a new location they'd have to call it New New Orleans, and that just ain't going to happen. The old city would be Old New Orleans, and that won't happen either.

Re:Water City

[furrywithwings]

Mod parent up. However, being the cynic I am, they will never just 'write it off' and we'll spend billions of dollars trying to fill a hole in the ground that is better left abandoned. I particularly like the choice comments of how because all the 'wetlands' were developed, there is no natural buffer anymore. Way to go overdevelopment!

Re:Water City

[stinerman]

There are many here that are telling content producers to find another way of doing business. The same goes for the rest of us. It's time to find another method of transporting our bodies from here to there. The present method is obsolete, just like their business model.

Spot on. You, sir, are now a friend.

Re:Water City

[mhollis]

We in the US pay a lot less for gasoline, not because we're an oil-producing country (the UK is, too) but because it's politically infeasable for us to tax it. I have heard it said that every time an European nation wishes to close a budget gap, they hike the price of petrol.

There are two lines of thought to this: It's "greener" because you folks tend to buy fewer "Yank Tanks" and tend to drive less. Americans are almost required to drive more, as our country is larger and we tend to be more mobile than Europeans (whose whole countries are about the same size as some of our States).

I should admit to some envy though. You have a much better rail system so it is actually possible to commute into your larger cities without too much driving.

To be fair though, might I ask you to look into how much of your costs are actually taxes?

Re:Water City

[mhollis]

Perhaps we should not [put] the wind farm in Nantucket sound but in the Gulf of Mexico.

Actually, both might be an excellent idea. I am familiar with the protests against placing a wind farm in Nantucket Sound and how people are saying that they'll kill birds, etc. It's a load of hooey -- these people who are against the proposal think wind farms are "unsightly" and are trying to use an environmental argument to oppose an environmentally sane solution to an energy problem.

I think the only solution to the Nantucket debate is to provide the residents there with cheaper electricity for a number of years. Were that to happen, all concern about "those poor birds" will dissapate like fog on a hot day.

I am sure you also will have noted the comment that stated that at wind speeds above 25 MPH, most of these wind farms cease operation.

I wonder...

[Rick Zeman]

...how many foreign countries are sending aid to the US now?

Re:I wonder...

[krakelohm]

are we requesting it?

Re:I wonder...

[DoddyUK]

Bearing in mind the *special* relationship Bush has with Blair, I wouldn't be surprised if Britain forks out a few quid.

Re:I wonder...

[phatwuss]

Much to Mullah Robertson's dismay, the infidel Hugo Chavez has pledged aid in the form of food and fuel. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050829/pl_afp/usweat hervenezuelaoil

Re:I wonder...

[AstroDrabb]

Hmm, that is pretty nice of him/them. I hope Venezuela follows through and delivers. If so, I think the Bush administration should _really_ reconsider "their" position on him/Venezuela. We as Americans may not totally agree with their government policies, however that doesn't mean we cannot get along and help one another, we are pretty clost to them.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Plenty... China, India, Bank of Japan. They're all contributing millions daily to prop up the US twin deficits.

Re:I wonder...

[fabs64]

Australia sends firefighters over to the US every year, and the US sends over its big firefighting chopper tanks every year.
Bur hurricanes and storms just aren't really our forte ;-)

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, considering how slow the Bush Administration (which is totally corrupt and incompetent in case you're not outraged by now) was to respond to December's tsunami disaster, NO country will be rushing forward anytime soon to help desparate Americans.

And the Bush government will likely not also ...considering that it would cost billions of tax dollars. ...and New Orleans is a "blue" city in a "blue" state. ...But watch how quickly they help Trent Lott and his friends rebuild their devastated Mississippi gated community.

Re:I wonder...

[demachina]

"We as Americans may not totally agree with their government policies, however that doesn't mean we cannot get along and help one another, we are pretty clost to them."

Yea it can. The U.S., especially America's right wing hate Socialists with a passion and that isn't going to change any time soon. Socialists are the antithesis of everything free marketers believe it, though there is irony that the New Republican party seems extremely enamored with big spending and big government which is constantly intervening in markets, and looks pretty socialist to me too. Its just Fascist leaning Socialism where its to the benefit of the wealthy and loyal party members. China is also more Fascist leaning Socialism than Communism these days.

Cuba and Venezuela by contrast are left leaning Socialism which is focused on things like universal health care, education, elimination of poverty, land reform and Republican's in particular HATE people that do nasty stuff like that.

Me personally I prefer small government that stays out of my life so I don't like the New Republican or Cuba/Venezuela styles of Socialism. About the only use I see for government is minimal self defense, maybe building roads, and regulating unscrupulous business who if left unregulated would take over the world and for the most part already have.

Re:I wonder...

[jav1231]

Uh...riiiiiight. Fsck human rights, eh?

Re:I wonder...

[MillionthMonkey]

...how many foreign countries are sending aid to the US now?

I might take this opportunity to point out that all our troubles are the fault of the French. Yes, the FRENCH.
If those French colonists hadn't chosen such a poor location to found a city in 1718, we wouldn't be flooded right now!

Re:I wonder...

[Colonel Panic]

Much to Mullah Robertson's dismay, the infidel Hugo Chavez has pledged aid in the form of food and fuel.

Robertson says: "Communism! You can't just go around giving away food and fuel like that! Another reason to get rid of Chavez!"

Re:I wonder...

[That's Unpossible!]

Ummm, yeah, I wonder if Chavez is really interested in helping the US, or if he is more interested in turning poor people into communists? I know this sounds like some crazy idea, but the last paragraph of the article is interesting:

"Last week, Chavez offered discount gasoline to poor Americans suffering from high oil prices and on Sunday offered free eye surgery for Americans without access to health care."

Call me skeptical.

Re:I wonder...

[williamyf]

I am a venezuelan.

As per rules and regulations of foreign policy. The Aid will not be delivered until it is requested.

When we had our desaster here (Vargas 1999), Mr. Chavez was ofered aid from the USA, and he declined it because his administration feared that there would be spyes infiltrated in the relief personel.

I guess Mr. Bush will go by the same token. The only difference being that the USA is in a much better position to reject the aid than venezuela was in its time.

Think of it as just another outburst in an already agitaded foreign policy between the two countries.

If you all did not notice, I do not like Mr. Chavez, or Mr. Bush, albeit, for different reasons in each case.

Suerte a todos y feliz dia!

Re:I wonder...

[javiercero]

You get what you pay for... *Louisiana Purchase*

Re:I wonder...

[AstroDrabb]

Huh? You are comparing the richest man in the world to the people of Mississippi and New Orleans? About 9,000 poor people went to the Super Dome because they had no way out of town (it was the rich and comfortable middle class that got to get out of town).

There are plenty of poor people here in the U.S.A that need help, especially during a devastating event like Katrina. The people of the U.S.A. (not even including the tons of money the U.S.A. govt. also gives) give tons of money every year to people/nations around the world through charities. Yet when we are in need we get crap?

The U.S.A. govt. is not going to pay for all this damage. It will be the private insurance companies that have to pay for it. Guess who has to repay those insurance companies? Yup, that would be us, the customers of those insurance companies. So basically all of us in the U.S.A. have to cover this heavy burden by paying higher insurance premiums, and as it looks now, much higher gas prices. A little help from our so-called "friends/allies" would be most welcome right now. Though I won't hold my breath because there is usually little foreign aid when the U.S.A. is in need because of stupid perceptions like yours.

I live in Central FL and I am financially comfortable. I will be giving what I can to the Red Cross. However, it will take much, much more than I could possible give to make any difference to this people in need.

Re:I wonder...

[rsynnott]

The free eye surgery, however motivated, was a humanitarian act. It is truely terrifying how people in one of the richest countries in the world go without basic healthcare.

Re:I wonder...

[cybpunks3]

The guy has a persecution complex. The way you respond is to call his bluff.

You invite him to the whitehouse for a peace summit. You try to figure out what he wants in an open dialogue. If he didn't agree to come, he'd lose all credibility.

Re:I wonder...

[Monkelectric]

You must be one of those foreigners who thinks that all Americans are rich.

Re:I wonder...

[That's Unpossible!]

The free eye surgery, however motivated, was a humanitarian act.

Your statement is illogical. If Chavez wasn't motivated by a concern for human welfare, then it would not be a humanitarian act.

For example, if he was only offering it to make people without insurance think communism is a good idea, then it is not a humanitarian act, it is a political act.

Perhaps you meant to say, however motivated, the offer may end up benefiting people. That may be true.

Re:I wonder...

[jericho4.0]

The whole bitching about aid thing sucks. I am not a fan of US politics in any way, and yes, they could have done more money after the tsunami. But people in disasters don't need money, they need help. The US had 2000+ Navy personel in Indionesia in 2 days. With water purification and medical aid. That matters.

It should be obvious that the US can take care of itself financialy better than anyone. I'm sure they could use trained rescue personel from anywhere, and they're getting them. I heard today that a guy I know (search and rescue) flew down this morning (Canada). So there.

Re:I wonder...

[evenmoreconfused]

Yes, apparently you did.

Today they announced on Montreal radio that an emergency response team of 30 Red Cross members is leaving tomorrow for New Orleans.

Of course, whether or not Montreal is a part of Canada depends on your political persuasion.

Re:I wonder...

[MKalus]

Besides,

since when is Venezuela a communist country?

Re:I wonder...

[slashdot_commentator]

"Its just Fascist leaning Socialism where its to the benefit of the wealthy and loyal party members. China is also more Fascist leaning Socialism than Communism these days."

There is no such thing as fascist-leaning Socialism. Fascism and Socialism are two dissimilar political/economic philosophies that differs on its core values. The only thing they arguably have similar is their penchant towards ruthless oppression. Fascism believes in centralized gov't, to benefit commercial enterprise, usually to the expense of the people's welfare and individual rights. Socialism believes in centralized gov't, to benefit each citizen, regardless of merit, usually to the expense of commercial enterprise, and individual rights.
China is a formerly socialist state in the process of evolving into a fascist state.

Cuba is a socialist gov't. Venezuela is a democracy teetering towards a more centralized gov't; whether is a socialist state or a fascist state is a matter of conjecture.

Don't spew your right wing crap here, attributing Fascism as a form of Socialism. "Evil" Socialism is not made more "Evil" by demonstrating fascist qualities. Fascism is the desired model of government for an unchecked capitalist class. Its pretty much what the USA is devolving towards.

If you really prefer small gov't that stays out of your life, stop supporting GWB, who supports moneyed interest, wants bible thumpers to tell you how to live your life, and wants to send your children to die overseas for some ragheads' "freedom". Stop supporting Democrats who support moneyed interests, wants atheists to tell you how to live your life, and wants to send your children to die overseas for some ragheads' "freedom". And stop being a parasite of other states.

Re:I wonder...

[theolein]

Chavez is mainly pissed off by the way the US condoned the coup attempt in 2002. His policies inside Venezuela may be socialist but why don't you wait and see if they actually help people first before screaming communist all over the place?

Venezuela has a huge amount of poverty and he is actively doing something with state money to change that. If it works, good for him. If it doesn't then you can unfurl your anti-communist slogans and cry for war or something.

Re:I wonder...

[DAldredge]

You are aware the Red Cross, while having special rights/privilages, is a private org, aren't you?

Re:I wonder...

[guinsu]

They pay payroll taxes, social security, workmans comp, basically anything that gets deducted from your paycheck. They also pay to register their cars and pay taxes on them. Plus local wage taxes.

Re:I wonder...

[CosmeticLobotamy]

I wonder if Chavez is really interested in helping the US, or if he is more interested in turning poor people into communists?

Who cares? The nice thing about being a free country is that you're allowed to be communist, so long as you don't go around violently overthrowing things. If the guy thinks it's better and he can convince other people of that, good for him.

Re:I wonder...

[DAldredge]

Not if they are paid in cash under the table.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Venzuela is a socialist country, not communist.

And if Chavez is giving away aid and helping the poor, couldn't it be that he believes in socialism and helping the poor? And through carrying out his ideology it also may influence others that the ideology has merit? His ideology of socialism/communism is that the needy should be supported by those who have the means to help them. If he practices this ideology, then people as a result of the practice will be influenced into looking at the ideology favorably.

The logical result of his type of socialism is that its a good thing and helps people, so obviously he does want people to help others in the same manner and move towards a more socialist form of government. So what?

Re:I wonder...

[Better.Safe.Than.Sor]

The Canadian Red Cross usually lends a hand when something goes goes south (er, or comes north) in the US. Your welcome.

Re:I wonder...

[AstroDrabb]

That sucks. I had no idea that foreign "aid" was so politically bogged down. If what you state is true, than what Mr. Chaves offered is not really "aid" but only political BS. Just as what Bush "offered" to Venezuelan is only political BS.

I think it is pretty sad IMO. Why should the people of two nations depend on the personal relations of those two nations leaders? I am sure that if you and I or any other Venezuelan and other American go together one-on-one, things would be much different. Both would realize that both are just HUMANS and actually get along.

Well, if you are ever in America, look me up and I would gladly show you around.

Re:I wonder...

[bahwi]

I think one of the points of US aid is it is very low per capita, and we can do better, especially with the current big government mentality. *Cough*TSA big example*Cough*

If we started being fiscally conservative we would have more money to send, and if it didn't need to go anywhere, we could use it to improve things here(Nothing is ever perfect).

Re:I wonder...

[anagama]

Whoa there brother -- the parent poster didn't sound much like a republican to me. In fact, he was complaining about republican style "socialism". He sounds like a libertarian -- someone who doesn't fit in either the Dem or Rep camp in that both Democrats and Republicans are bent on imposing government will on the people, and in redistributing wealt, but with differing perspectives on what should be imposed and who should get the wealth. They're the same band of oppressive theives either way.

"That's what governments are for, to get in a man's way." Malcom Reynolds.

Re:I wonder...

[rgmoore]

Of course, whether or not Montreal is a part of Canada depends on your political persuasion.

No it doesn't. Montreal most certainly is part of Canada. Whether it should be part of Canada depends on your political persuasion.

Re:I wonder...

[demachina]

Dude if you reread your post you find you are agreeing with what I said more than disagreeing I think you were just to busy going off the deep end to notice.

"The only thing they arguably have similar is their penchant towards ruthless oppression"

Gee thats pretty big common ground, that and massive state intervention in everyone's lives and in all aspects of economics.

"There is no such thing as fascist-leaning Socialism."

epends on how you define Socialism. You may have heard of this thing called National Socialism. Yes the Nazi's referred to themselves as Socialists.

Socialism is in essence a form of government featuring a big, all controlling state. It really has two forms, on the left Communism and on the right Fascism. When they both reach their extremes they actually wrap around and become more the same than different. Only real difference in Communism there is state ownership of everything and in Fascism the party elite tend to own everything and there is a facade of free market capitalism, though the state intervenes in it at every turn to create artificial winners and loser much like you see today's Republican party doing, and it happens the winners they tend to pick are the party faithful just like in Germany and today in China.

In practice you find they end up being almost exactly the same, the only difference is bureaucrats and politicians garner all the power and wealth in Communism while Fascism doles some of it out to corporations and wealthy party members who run them.

Now Social Democrats are a completely different animal, they are a much kinder and gentler form of Socialism and are mostly just out to tax everyone in to the ground to provide universal health care, education, pensions etc. I'm cool with that if its what you want out of your government, just me personally I'd rather not pay the high taxes, drown in red tape to get rationed health care, etc. and would rather fend for myself.

I don't think I've been called "right wing" on Slashdot lately. If you read my posts in the past you find the right wingers rail at me as hard or harder than you just did. I am a libertarian when it comes to personal freedoms and Progressive only when it comes to the need to regulate and check big corporations and the rich, but am totaly opposed to everything else socialists and progressives stand for because government is inherently incompetent and big government is just more so.

Not sure there is a name for my idealogy or that I fit on any of the idealogy charts.

Re:I wonder...

[timeOday]

How is any kind of federal disaster relief NOT communist, or at least socialist? We just don't call it that because those are bad words.

In a pure free market, we wouldn't have FEMA, we'd have entreprenuers demanding families' life savings in exchange for life preservers and clean water.

Re:I wonder...

[AstroDrabb]

especially America's right wing hate Socialists with a passion

I don't know if you have noticed, but America's left wing is _just_ as BIG GOVERNMENT as the right. That is why I am personally a Libertarian.

Cuba and Venezuela by contrast are left leaning Socialism which is focused on things like universal health care, education, elimination of poverty, land reform and Republican's in particular HATE people that do nasty stuff like that.

Huh? What world do you live in? Cuba and Venezuela live in tons of poverty, much more than the U.S.A. Do you expect me to believe that the leaders of Cuba and Venezuela care about the average citizens health care, education and poverty? In a system of Socialism, the leaders always provide for themselves first and "the people" later. Show me one active system of Socialism where those in power of that Socialist govt. are not _far_ better off financially than the average person living under that Socialist govt.

I can show you tons of private citizens (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, etc.) that are far better off financially in the U.S.A. than upper members of the govt. The wealthiest 400 (non-govt.) U.S.A. citizens are worth $955 billion, just shy of $1 Trillion dollars! You won't see personal wealth like that in any society based on Socialism, unless of course it is the wealth of the leaders of that Socialist nation. At least in America, "We The People" have a chance to better ourselves through hard work and a little luck.

There are _many_ differences between a "text book" Socialist govt. and what Cuba and Venezuela implement. In Cuba and Venezuela, those in power are extremely wealthy and well provided for, while the rest of those two nations suffers. To me that is _nothing_ like what a "text book" Socialist govt. should be. Do you think Mr. Chavez is suffering with his poor? Nope. Do you think Castro is suffering with his poor? Nope. The problem with _every_ Socialist govt. to date is that those in power always take care of themselves first. The rest of the nation comes second.

I personally will take Capitalism and Freedom over Socialism any day. At least with Capitalism I can have a chance to provide for myself if I have the skills and dedication.

Re:I wonder...

[barzok]

It wouldn't hurt our allies and those we've helped in the past to say "hey, guys, you need a hand?"

Right now it looks like the primary need isn't money, it's manpower/equipment, medical attention, sustenance, and shelter. All things that can be flown in from anywhere.

The Coast Guard (and National Guard, and others) is flying round the clock to lift people off rooftops, but the crews are going to be fatigued fast and there aren't enough choppers to get to everyone in time.

Potable water is needed everywhere, and people need to eat.

Medical - obvious. Diabetics need their insulin refrigerated and their properly-sized meals.

Shelter - again, should be obvious. People need safe, dry places to sleep.

Re:I wonder...

[Stone Rhino]

Relatively speaking, we are. Practically every american has material wealth or income orders of magnitude above what 50% of the world lives on. But it's still not anywhere close to being Bill Gates. Those devastated by tragedy are in need, and few really have the means to help themselves. Unfortunately, there are many people for whom horrible conditions are so routine that they don't recieve the same notice as the victims of a specific disaster.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mullah Robertson's

Don't call him that. It's an insult to genuine mullahs - and you probably think I'm joking.

Re:I wonder...

[Doc Ruby]

The people in the White House, Bush & company, backe the coup that deposed Chavez for 2 days a few years ago, despite his large majority election victory, overseen as fair by many foreign representatives, including American. After he was returned, showing his actual control of the government as recognized by its members, including the armed forces, he was reelected, by an even larger margin. Chavez is the popularly elected leader of Venezeula, without a doubt. And the White House you'd have "call his bluff" has actually persecuted him, and thereby Venezuela. Not to mention the comparative differences in legitimacy of their respective elections. These are among the many reasons that Chavez' credibility is only increasing, while Bush's credibility is plummeting.

Remarks like Robertson's, who represents a sizeable fraction of Bush's base, are among the other reasons. It's hardly a persecution complex when popular American leaders demand that our government assassinate. If anyone's bluff has been called, it's America's, and now the whole world can see the Ace of Spades up our sleeve, even if it's not in the hand of the dealer sitting in the White House.

Re:I wonder...

[sholden]

But neither do Americans in that case, so it's pretty much irrelevant...

Re:I wonder...

[Scudsucker]

I don't know if you have noticed, but America's left wing is _just_ as BIG GOVERNMENT as the right.

Meaningless ad hominem.

That is why I am personally a Libertarian.

Libertarianism works just fine in a small hamlet of a few people. In a nation pushing 300 million people, it would be a complete, utter disaster.

In a system of Socialism, the leaders always provide for themselves first and "the people" later.

And your basis for this is....?

Show me one active system of Socialism where those in power of that Socialist govt. are not _far_ better off financially than the average person living under that Socialist govt.

Big. Fucking. Deal. Even in socialist countries, you have to run for office. Running for office takes money. So, if a person has been elected for office, it probably means they have money. Now, would you like me to explain how 1 + 1 = 2?

In Cuba and Venezuela, those in power are extremely wealthy and well provided for, while the rest of those two nations suffers. To me that is _nothing_ like what a "text book" Socialist govt. should be. Do you think Mr. Chavez is suffering with his poor? Nope. Do you think Castro is suffering with his poor? Nope.

What a bunch of retarded crap. So, no person who is rich can try and help someone who is poor, without making their lives as bad as the ones they are trying to help, or they are just a phoney? How dumb are you?

Re:I wonder...

[vinlud]

Considering he is the democratically elected leader of a souvereign, peaceful and poor country i find it highly disturbing that some American politicians want him dead, only because he has a socialist policy. So much for spreading democracy. :-/

Re:I wonder...

[aminorex]

National Socialism was much more National than Socialist. They adopted Socialism in name in order to differentiate themselves from the Communists, but never made an attempt to implement socialism, which is collective ownership of the means of production mediated by government. The NSDAP had much more affinity for Mussolini's Fascism than for Marxist-Leninist Socialism (socialism as an intermediate stage between capitalism and future communism, direct collective ownership of the means of production without the mediation of a state), and made very cozy with monied interests to bolster the economic power of its inner circles. They didn't even nationalize arms manufacture in the midst of total war, for pete's sake.

Re:I wonder...

[ThaFooz]

Probably none. Sure its a double standard, but would you rather trade places with any other nation?

But don't worry, much like the Europeans before us, our success has lead to decadence... it won't be long before we too fall from international relevance and can critque the rest of the world without being expected to be part of the solution.

Re:I wonder...

[ucblockhead]

Nope. I'm an American who realizes that his own country is by far the richest in the world.

Re:I wonder...

[aminorex]

Personally, I'm one of those Americans who thinks that all Americans are rich. Some are just richer than others; but, they are all (modulo a few mental patients and bohemians) way, way too rich, and should be eaten.

Re:I wonder...

[i_am_not_a_bomba]

So you're saying you need it?

Well, we all just assumed the "greatest country in the world(tm)" would be capable of taking care of an internal natural disaster itself, i mean my lowly country can and does every year, but if you can't...

I'm sure us "less fortunate" countries who are so envious of your great and powerful country can scrape together some small amount of charity if you really need it.

Of course in the great tradition of the US of A, if you accept our charity we get to meddle in the affairs of your country forever. Ok?

Re:I wonder...

[Guppy06]

All the ones with their own military bases on the US Gulf Coast.

It's really easy for the US to send people out to be the hero when they're already there. At this point in time, nobody else has such a global empire.

Re:I wonder...

[Narff]

Do you mean because the USA was forced to give money to Indonesia after the tsunami disaster or because you think the USA gives out lots of foreign aid in general? Because if you think its the latter - Think again. The USA are very stingy when it comes to giving foreign aid.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Australia-among-t op-five-aid-donors/2005/08/31/1125302598274.html

Britain, Spain and Sweden showed the most improvement for increasing aid, while Japan and the United States gave the least relative to the size of their economies.

Re:I wonder...

[demachina]

"They didn't even nationalize arms manufacture in the midst of total war, for pete's sake."

They didn't nationalize it but it was completely state dominated. We are really splitting semantic hairs here. I'm pretty sure we've established China is more Fascist than Communist today and the fact that they jump from one side of the spectrum to the other in a few years without anyone noticing show how much the same the two idealogies are. I think we also established that the Republican party is pretty closer to Fascism than anything elseeconomically, they just haven't managed a full blown police state just yet.

I appreciate the yearning in some circles for Marxist-Leninist Socialism to introduce a workers paradise unfortunately in practice it ends up not being a collective or a workers paradise. It ends up being party members seizing all the power and wealth for themselves, and screwing all of the working stiffs, just like like the moneyed elites do in Capitalism and Fascism. Unfortunately all people who aspire to power are inherently corrupt or end up that way when they gain power and it leads to all governments of any size turning in to steaming piles of shit.

Re:I wonder...

[FireBreathingDog]

Yes! Yes! It is bad to be rich! Kill all the rich people so everyone will be poor!

Re:I wonder...

[paxmark1]

Front page today of Winnipeg Free Press up here in Canada is that Winnipeggers need to help New Orleans.

I moved up to Canada so as to not pay US taxes (I am a us citizen.) So, don't blame Canada, the US screws them over every day, and still they want to help you out. Maybe that is why I like it up here.

Re:I wonder...

[RexRhino]

Don't get caught up in the propoganda.

While Chavez is making some token attempts to help people, if real significant portion of oil revenues were being used to help the poor they could garantee every person in Venezuela western style medical care, diet, and education. There are serious questions about were all that money is going.

The main reason why people outside Venezuela love him so much is not because he is some kind of people's hero, it is because they like his anti-American rhetoric. It gives people in countries married to the U.S. economicly and politically a vicarious thrill to have Chavez stand up to the U.S. when their own leaders will not. Chavez could be running death squads all over the country (and some have even made the allegation), and I don't think anyone would take issue with it as long as he kept up the anti-American rhetoric.

Re:I wonder...

[paxmark1]

Actually they went to Dauphin Island first off the coast of Mobile to set up their capital. Hurricane came in, and they went to New Orleans.

Re:I wonder...

[lawpoop]

I used to volunteer for a program through the Methodist Church called ASP -- Appalachian Service Project. We would have crews from our church go down to poor areas of Appalachia and repair and rebuild homes. These people were poor by our standards, but they would have refridgerators, microwaves, cards, etc. But certainly no extra income to fix a leaking roof or rotting floorboards.

Then I spen two summers in Ecuador. The first summer I was in the tourist section of Quito in a Spanish immersion class. I saw families -- families -- mom, dad, and kids -- living homeless on the street. On the street. The little girls would lift up their skirts, squat, and pee, right on the sidewalk. That's something you don't see very often in the US.

The next summer I spent with an indigenous family, living in thatch-roof huts, playing cards by candle-light at night. These people had absolutely nothing. Their huts were built of wood they had cut down themselves. They carried babies around in shoulder sacks made of sheets. Their children were malnourished -- a 5 year old kid looked like a 3 year old.

I'll bet you're one of those Americans who have never been in a 3rd world country, witnessing actual poverty -- people literally living in dirt. Americans are incredibly, incredibly wealthy. Even the 'poor' ones.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

> If Bill Gates' den collapses, do the residents of Redmond take up a collection?

Yes, way to go. People have lost their homes, everything they own, sometimes their lives. A good fraction of a city is underwater. I'm sure you are very proud of your position, that you don't have to help them, because, hey, they're *Rich Americans*, right?

Never mind that in pretty much every disaster of any significance anywhere in the world, they help others when they need it. Oh, I'm sure you'll be quick to point out, they might not help as much per GDP as East Bunghole, Tazmania. But the simple fact is, they do help, with both money, equipment, and food. Once in a while, they even help more than the *rest of the world combined*.

But it's just the Americans getting clobbered this time. No worries. Americans deserve whatever bad happens to them.

Re:I wonder...

[AstroDrabb]

Libertarianism works just fine in a small hamlet of a few people. In a nation pushing 300 million people, it would be a complete, utter disaster.

As you stated, "And your basis for this is...."?

Maybe just look at the govt. of Cuba and Venezuela? The members of those govts. are _far_ better off than the average citizen. In fact, there are not many (if any) citizens in Cuba and Venezuela that surpass the financial level of their govts. In contrast, here in the USA, there are more private citizens financially better off than the members of the govt. Hell, you add of the top few hundred USA citizens wealth and they surpass what the legislative body of the govt. makes.

Big. Fucking. Deal. Even in socialist countries, you have to run for office. Running for office takes money. So, if a person has been elected for office, it probably means they have money. Now, would you like me to explain how 1 + 1 = 2?

Ahh, yes, when you don't have a valid argument, curse and call names, that always works. Exactly _why_ does it cost money to run for govt. in a Socialist system? Shouldn't the Socialist govt. pay for that? Oh, yea, I am sure that _any_ citizen in Cuba or Venezuela can just run for government if they have enough votes. Umm, wait they can't. When was the last time someone ran against Castro?

What a bunch of retarded crap. So, no person who is rich can try and help someone who is poor, without making their lives as bad as the ones they are trying to help, or they are just a phoney? How dumb are you?

Damn dude, did you even graduate from high school? You don't sound like it. How exactly do you extrapolate what you based your comment above on from what I wrote:

In Cuba and Venezuela, those in power are extremely wealthy and well provided for, while the rest of those two nations suffers. To me that is _nothing_ like what a "text book" Socialist govt. should be. Do you think Mr. Chavez is suffering with his poor? Nope. Do you think Castro is suffering with his poor? Nope.

To your extremely childish conclusion? Why don't we look at the definition of Socialism over at WikiPedia

Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production. In application, however, the de facto meaning of socialism has changed with time. Although it is a politically loaded term, it remains strongly related to the establishment of an organized working class, created through either revolution or social evolution, with the purpose of building a classless society

So exactly _how_ do you have true Socialism if you have rich politicians making all the rules? As far as the rich helping the poor; well that happens _all_ the time here in the USA. People who are well-off help those less fortunate from free will, and not from some govt. mandated "ideal" of a classless society, which is really just nothing more than the leaders being very rich and comfortable while the rest of the people live in poverty.

Re:I wonder...

[demachina]

"Cuba and Venezuela live in tons of poverty, much more than the U.S.A. Do you expect me to believe that the leaders of Cuba and Venezuela care about the average citizens health care, education and poverty?"

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about as far as Cuba and Venezuela go. Yes Cuba is poor, its a small island with limited resources and embargoed by the power that dominates its hemisphere. If you had a clue about the reality of Cuba they do in fact have great healthcare and education especially considering their absence of wealth. They train doctors largely at state expense from all over the world and those doctors go back to dirt poor regions that wouldn't have doctors at all were it not for Cuba. They provide university educations to people based on their merit, not on their ability to pay.

Venezuela is in transition from being a Fascist country like Columbia, like most countries in the Western Hemisphere because the U.S. installed Fascist dictators in most of them. They had a tiny moneyed elite controlled all the land, oil, wealth and power and the vast majority of the population was in desperate poverty and near servitude. Hard to say how Chavez will turn out but he is extremely popular among the poor and the poor vastly out number the rich. So you ranters have a problem, you have to pick one and only one:

A. Democracy in which case Chavez is going to win because he is popular with the poor and the poor outnumber the rich

B. Plutocracy and dictatorship where the rich minority control the government but its anything but democratic.

"I personally will take Capitalism and Freedom"

The irony with Capitalism is you have more freedom the more money you have. Its a great system as long as you are well off or are willing to do whatever it takes, mostly screw everyone around you, to get that way. If you've ever been poor I think you discovered there isn't a lot of freedom that counts for much. If you are affluent you get off when charged with crimes, if you are poor you rot in jail. In New Orleans the affluent we mostly free to flee destruction and the insurance companies will buy them new houses. The poor were basically imprisoned there and are bearing the brunt of the disaster, and chances are they couldn't afford insurance so what little they had is gone.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's better to be poor and free than slightly less poor and enslaved.

This is something that only somebody who's lived under tyrannical socialism can understand.

Charles (from Budapest)

Re:I wonder...

[SnowZero]

Wow, that's a great idea. Quite helpful to have the fire seasons out of sync.

Re:I wonder...

[ThaFooz]

I moved up to Canada so as to not pay US taxes (I am a us citizen.) So, don't blame Canada, the US screws them over every day

So let me get this striaght: you moved to Canada to avoid US taxes while enjoing the fruit of the US economy... and claim the Americans are screwing the Canadians? Interesting.

Re:I wonder...

[Dasher42]

What I would love to hear is how Chavez is exporting communism and militant Islam, both of them at once! Commies and mujahadeen in lockstep, as so often happens. Pat Robertson knows such interesting things.

Re:I wonder...

[That's Unpossible!]

They pay payroll taxes, social security, workmans comp, basically anything that gets deducted from your paycheck. They also pay to register their cars and pay taxes on them. Plus local wage taxes.

What part of "illegal aliens" don't you understand? I was specifically talking about illegal aliens. Illegal aliens do not pay payroll taxes, social security, workman's comp, or anything else because they do not earn a legal paycheck, because it is against the law to hire illegal aliens. This means if you are employing an illegal alien, you are breaking the law, and contrary to your statement, you are not collecting any of the taxes you mentioned.

Re:I wonder...

[That's Unpossible!]

But neither do Americans in that case, so it's pretty much irrelevant...

So we deport the Americans that purposely cheat on their taxes.

Next.

Re:I wonder...

[That's Unpossible!]

since when is Venezuela a communist country?

Where did I say Venezuela is a communist country? I was speaking specifically of Chavez. He may not now be classified as a communist, but read more about him.

Chavez is an extreme leftist populist, and a Castro-admirer[1]. He wants to mold Venezuela into a new Cuba, but with the help of their oil supply.

[1] BBC News profile of Chavez describes him as an "admirer of Fidel Castro's Cuba."

Re:I wonder...

[That's Unpossible!]

since when is Venezuela a communist country?

And as an addendum to my other reply, I found this quote from wikipedia:

"[Chavez] said that Venezuelans must choose between 'capitalism, which is the road to hell, or socialism, for those who want to build the kingdom of God here on earth.'"

Re:I wonder...

[slashdot_commentator]

"He sounds like a libertarian"

I am not one of these bible thumpers who can stretch open my arms, reach out across the Internet, and determine the heart or political ideology of the poster on the other end. I can only develop an impression based upon WHAT HE SAYS, and that is the whole point of my screed.

If one cannot take the minimal effort read an encyclopedia blurb on political philosophy and the history of each movement, one should not go about defining what is a socialist gov't and what is a fascist form of gov't. They come off as uneducated, mildly retarded individuals. What ever intelligent idea they may have to offer is tarnished with their inability to use correct terms to describe their "worthy" idea. You do not call gov'ts that give benefits to corporations COMMUNIST. You do not call gov't that give benefits to poor people FASCISTS. Worse, they are weeds which choke off any chance at an intelligent discourse in this joke of a forum.

"In fact, he was complaining about republican style "socialism" "

How can I tell?!?! He's not using any of those terms in an applicable manner! If he does not possess a basic knowlege of the terms he is using, he should shut up, or at least realize he's going to be ridiculed for it.

Re:I wonder...

[lawpoop]

The homeless people you see wandering the streets in America can beg enough change to get enough nutrition from the omnipresent fast-food restaurants. If things get really bad, they can get into the homeless shelter or the emergency rooms. Americans are so rich that a homeless person can pretty much find all the supplies they need in the trash to clothe themselves and create a decent dwelling

Fast food restaurants, homeless shelters, emergency rooms, and useful 'trash' simply do not exist in the third world.

Re:I wonder...

[stinky wizzleteats]

We've been going through this all day on Fark.

Canada is already mobilizing, and Russia has offered to help. In what is regarded as an interesting political move, Venezuela has offered to provide food and heating oil to the poor on the gulf coast. What people in the stifling heat of the Superdome would do with heating oil, I am not really sure...

Re:I wonder...

[Savantissimo]

That would be a veg^H^H^Hhumanitarian course, but we'd be really bad for your cholesterol.

Re:I wonder...

[Dasher42]

Mmm-hmm. Quite the shameless love-in. Decent folks the world over had to protest.

Re:I wonder...

[jeepeagle]

Fault actually lies with the British, who deported the Acadians from eastern Canada, forcing them to settle further south (Louisiana).

Re:I wonder...

[CottonEyedJoe]

While the Ecuadoran family may have appeared to have nothing, they were actually living well beyond the natural state for humans. Most of human past was spent moving from place to place, hunting, gathering and gardening (not farming). Humans lived in temporary huts or caves.

Ironically, it is the "modernization" by missionaries and others which leads people to abandon perfectly self sustaining hunter gatherer lifestyles for untenable and unsuitable positions as farmers and "workers" in permanent villages that often causes so much misery. Being a peasant is an awful way to earn a living.

Re:I wonder...

[NeMon'ess]

Then we must work to prevent tyrannical socialsm just as we work to prevent fascism or extreme libertarianism.

The USA already has lots of social programs and wealth transfers, right down to your local fire and police departments. For the most part they work much better than the pay-per-use alternatives. Or would you like your downstairs neighbor to try and put a grease fire out himself because he doesn't want a $500 fire department bill for calling them? 50% odds he fails and the delay spreads the fire, possibly burning your stuff too.

Re:I wonder...

[slashdot_commentator]

It's all jargon, and you're not helping.

Yes, it is jargon, and that jargon has SPECIFIC meaning. When you misuse those terms to argue a position, its nothing more than rhetoric grandstanding to get even more stupid people to agree with you. Frankly, all it probably does is make the poster feel good, thinking he said something intelligent. I just want to make it a painful enough experience that he discontinues his practice of making his stupid statements.

I am not trying to help. I'm trying to make him defend his usage, present a position, so I can rip it to pieces.

Fascism believes in centralized gov't, to benefit commercial enterprise, usually to the expense of the people's welfare and individual rights

What you've described is communism. The "usually to the expense of" part is the reality of human greed setting in over communism.

No, you fucking retard, Communism is the imposition of "equal" redistribution of wealth amongst its citizens. That is accomplished by having the gov't own everything, and since each citizen has an equal vote in the gov't, the citizens now owns an equal share of communal property.

Nowhere in Fascism does it require gov't OWNING commercial industry. It may HEAVILY REGULATE industry, it may pull all sorts of corrupt shit "for the good of the state", but redistribution of property and equality of the citizen is not REMOTELY any tenet of Fascism!

Socialism believes in centralized gov't, to benefit each citizen, regardless of merit, usually to the expense of commercial enterprise, and individual rights

Ignoring completely that every socialist government ever in existence has also exhibited the actions of a communist government.

That is not ignoring anything. It reflects the fact that the terms have been intertwined from the inception of each philosophy. But Sweden did not take EVERYTHING from everyone, and enforce some form of equal redistribution of wealth, UNLIKE the Soviet Union. The Swedes who own shares of Nokia still own more assets than the Swedes who don't own shares of Nokia. One needs to differentiate a "welfare state" from a "communist state", hence the specialization of terms. Your confusion stems from the fact you didn't even know what Communism is. (Wouldn't it be pathetic if you walked away still not grasping the difference?)

Let's get it straight.

Yes, lets.

A communist government exercises powers to control business and the economy.

WRONG. A communist gov't confiscates all industry and thus controls business and the economy.

A socialist government exercises powers to control citizens and behavior.

WRONG. A socialist gov't controls industry, what industry can and can't do to citizens, and redistributes earnings and assets through progressive taxation to provide gov't services to citizens. That's it. It does not abolish the concept of individual ownership of assets, though it can nationalize (confiscate) specific industries. Sweden's teens can fuck like bunnies, kill themselves, and can worship Scientology. That doesn't sound like a gov't that is controlling citizens and their behavior.

A fascist government lies about it by telling the citizens that it's for their own good.

You really think any political scientist uses that to define Fascism? You fucking retard.

Good for you Coward, now other readers don't have to realize the extent to wh

Re:I wonder...

[argoff]

In all fairness, democracy is not the "ends" but a means, a tool, a method, to secure and preserve individual rights and liberties. Venezuela has more than enough resources to not be poor in the slightest, it is only policies that coerce controll over people for the sake of "social good" that cause the poverty. Incidently, these types of governments are by nature anti peace.

Re:I wonder...

[Ihlosi]

What you've described is communism.

"Communism believes in centralized gov't, to benefit commercial enterprise." ?

That's an interesting hypothesis.

On a second thought, it's not. It's pure and utter BS. But very funny. Like most of the rest of the post.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

I might take this opportunity to point out that all our troubles are the fault of the French. Yes, the FRENCH.
If those French colonists hadn't chosen such a poor location to found a city in 1718, we wouldn't be flooded right now!

You naive yankee, it was part of the plan...

Re:I wonder...

[greenrom]

Nobody forces the USA to give anything to anybody. The USA gives what it wants to give just like everybody else. The article you point to is a bit misleading since it doesn't factor in things like the support offered by the U.S. military during natural disasters like the tsunami. It's hard to put a price tag on things like that. Still, I don't doubt that the United States isn't on the top of the list of foreign aid donations relative to GDP (though I suspect it is at or near the top in total dollars). Frankly, I don't see why the USA gives as much as it does. I have friends that are constantly donating to different charities to help people in other countries. I used to as well, but not anymore. Every time I turn on the TV, or read a blog, or even read slashdot, I'm reminded of how much everybody else hates the USA. I see people comparing our president to Hitler. I see people burning our flag in their streets chanting "Death to the USA" or other catchy slogans. Any time anything bad happens anywhere in the world, people find a way to blame it on us. Either our actions caused it, or our inaction caused it, or we aren't doing enough to fix it. I 'm sorry people are suffering around the world, but I just don't feel like helping anymore. Until Japan, or the UK, or Poland, or some other country that doesn't hate the US needs our help, my extra cash is going to get spent on bigger TVs and faster computers. At least that way I'm helping out China, and instead of getting hatred and resentment in return, I get a big plasma screen.

Re:I wonder...

[coaxial]

Ummm, yeah, I wonder if Chavez is really interested in helping the US, or if he is more interested in turning poor people into communists?

Gee get thee to the 1950s!

Communism is dead. North Korea is probably the only communist country left in the world, and that's a damn wierd place that no one really knows what is going on inside, so maybe not even that one. Sure, China and powerhouse Cuba may call themselves communist, but they really aren't. Totalitarian? Oh most definately! Communist? No. China stopped being communist the moment Deng Xiaopeng said, "To get rich is glorious." Cuba has a complete capitalist economy based on American dollars.

And if you think that there's some big undercurrent in the US wanting to be communist, again. The KGB tried for years to build a meaningful communist movement and failed. In fact, looking at the since declassified KGB reports from the 50s and 60s shows that the KGB agents reported that it was a wasted effort, and get this... they were losing KGB agents do to defection.

And one more inconvient fact about Chavez. He was democratically elected in an election the Carter Center as flawed, but did not change the outcome. In other words, the election is valid.

Re:I wonder...

[meadowsp]

A-ha-ha, that's really funny! And how's the might of your american military doing against a few goat herders in the middle east? Still soldiers dying every day?

Re:I wonder...

[rcs1000]

Whooo whooo whooo...

OK. There's a fair amount of truth in what you say. But there is also a fair amount of WTF in there too...

"Venezuela is in transition from being a Fascist country like Columbia, like most countries in the Western Hemisphere because the U.S. installed Fascist dictators in most of them."

I'll assume you're talking about the Americas. Because that's the kindest assumption. But it's still a ridiculous assumption that most of the countries in the Americas are "fascist dictatorships installed by the US government". Canada? Nope. Mexico? Nope. Argentina? Nope. Chile? Nope. Brazil? Nope. Right: now we've dealt with more than 90% of the population of the Americas, would you like to run by me - with examples - all those fascist dictatorships that still exist supported by the US?

I'm not saying that the US has not been guilty of backing some particularly evil and mendacious regimes. (And even being responsible for a number of coups.) But, this hasn't happened for quite a long time now. George W at least has the guts to invade countries directly.

The other thing I have a tiny problem with is the knee jerk anti-capitalism in your statement. Equality is terrific. (I believe everybody should have as equal a chance as possible of becoming as unequal as possible. Equality of opportunity, if you like.) But if the choice is between being poor in Dafur or Havana, and being poor in Detroit or Houston, I'm afraid I'd go for the latter. (There is remarkably little malnurishment in the US, for all the income inequalities.)

The fact is, most people in the world are queing to get into capitalist democracies. People are voting, if you like, with their feet. The boats are not leaving Miami bound for Havana. (And the political oppresion in Cuba is also rather nasty. Check those notorious right-wingers at Amnesty if you don't believe me.)

"If you are affluent you get off when charged with crimes, if you are poor you rot in jail.

The US criminal justice system is a scandal. (Particularly in Texas.) But statements like this are ridiculous. About 30 seconds with Google will find you a list of rich people who have gone to jail recently (and you could do worse than start with the bosses of Tyco, Worldcom, Enron or evan Martha Stewart). Or aren't these people rich enough?

Anyway: please tone down the rhetoric. You have some good points, but they are not backed up by data or facts. Mindless assertions - no matter how they are moderated - are not "insightful".

Re:I wonder...

[rcs1000]

Sorry - Slashdot removed the "humour" tags around "George Bush at least has the guts to invade countries directly."

Re:I wonder...

[RollingThunder]

Amazingly, you can replace "Venezuela" with "The United States" and everything ends up just as correct.

Re:I wonder...

[Paul Jakma]

So by your logic a homeless american with no money is richer than a homeless 3rd world person.

Yep, because the country they live in is rich enough that they can always find something to eat in bins, if not actually find proper food at shelters set up specifically to aid the homeless.

Homelessness in the 1st world typically is due to one of severe substance abuse problems or mental illness. In the 3rd world however it's not some half-crazy or drug-addled person on the street who is there because they can't cope with society, rather it'll be entire families who are out on the street simply because of abject poverty (eg continued crop failures or utter lack of work in shanty-towns). Rather than living out of rubbish bins and shelters, these people often simply die.

You really need to get out and look around the world a bit more if you think there's no difference between being homeless in a 1st world city and a 3rd world country.

Re:I wonder...

[invisigoth]

Mod parent up. As the saying goes, the high tide lifts all boats.

Re:I wonder...

[Error27]

As a child I lived in that part of Zambia that is almost surrounded by the DR Congo and Angola. Both of those countries suffered at the hands of the CIA.

After the CIA assasinated Lumumba, it's easy for them to come out the next year and say, "We've learned our lesson we won't assisinate any more of your prime ministers." To me the bad thing was that the US supported Mobutu's regime for almost 40 years after that... Mobutu wouldn't have survived if he couldn't have hired a private army with US dollars.

The US did this because Zaire has strategic uranium reserves. (captain sarcasm interjects: "And also because they love freedom").

Re:I wonder...

[invisigoth]

As an American, I for one, appreciate your aid.

We may be the richest nation on earth, but we are not all rich. /Not affected by the hurricane. //Patriot.

Re:I wonder...

[Thwomp]

Do they need it?

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

But consider the current state of most of the former French colonies. Take a look at such winners as Vietnam, Haiti, French Guiana, etc. The parent post was meant to be funny but it's actually true - the French historically have left a disaster in their wake for centuries. (In direct contrast to British colonies - e.g. Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, and of course the U.S.A.)

Re:I wonder...

[mirio]

Huh?

What politicians want him dead? I've heard no one support Pat Robertson's comments -- in fact Bush completely and utterly condemned Robertson's comments.

I find it amusing that people will believe (and repeat) anything as long as it casts the US in a bad light.

Re:I wonder...

[vinlud]

You are denying the fact that the US government tried to put him out of office though supporting a coup a while back ago? And denying the fact that the policy towards Venezuala and Chavez is very hostile in general? It creates an atmosphere where Robertson is tempted to say public what undoubtly a lot of the right wing politicians think or talk in private. This is not about flaming about America, it is about the sheer hypocrisy ans sick minds of some politicians.

Re:I wonder...

[Cro Magnon]

What people in the stifling heat of the Superdome would do with heating oil, I am not really sure...

I ASSume it could also be used to power air conditioners. Presumably, that would be somewhat useful.

Re:I wonder...

[mark_jabroni]

Chavez also constantly says the US is planning to invade Venezuela.

If you're willing to believe everything the man says without question, he's perfectly willing to lie about the US.

Re:I wonder...

[bwy]

In a pure free market, we wouldn't have FEMA, we'd have entreprenuers demanding families' life savings in exchange for life preservers and clean water.

Actually, competition would drive the prices downward so that life preservers and clean water would be affordable.

Re:I wonder...

[i_am_not_a_bomba]

lol,

Going for the +5 patriotic mod today eh? To bad you failed. You do realise it's the GGPs "snide" comments about other countries offering aid that makes so many of you yanks look like assholes.

The countries that do give aid don't carry on about it you see, we give quietly and humbly, all the while shaking our heads while Americans screams from the top of their lungs "LOOK OH LOOK AT HOW GRACIOUS WE ARE, SUCH MARTYRS WE ARE EVERYONE BOW DOWN BEFORE OUR GENEROSITY AND FOREVER TELL US HOW MAGNIFICENT WE ARE".

As i read through your post i am vindicated in mine,

"we should stay the hell out and let the suffer, since they never help out, it's always us with the pocketbooks open, sucking away funds that could be used on our own internal matters."

Do you see how pathetic you come across? you are not special, you give no more or less than any other western democracy, so please, give it a rest ok?

As for the rest of your rant,

1. Timing
I didn't bring it up FOOL, an American, one of your infaliable countrymen thought little enough to politicise it while his countrymen are dying, remember? the post i responded to? clown.

2. Envy, embarrasment, etc

Me envious of you? lol.

Of course you posted anonymously, not me, so i would say it's you who is embarrassed.

3.My own country,

My own country, Australia, will have already offered help, it would not have called a press conference to do so, see "humbleness" above.

4. Crazy rant about American political imperialism

LOOOL

Thanks for the laugh.

Re:I wonder...

[bwy]

I'll bet you're one of those Americans who have never been in a 3rd world country, witnessing actual poverty -- people literally living in dirt. Americans are incredibly, incredibly wealthy. Even the 'poor' ones.

Dunno- there are a lot of people in the superdome right now with no homes, no money in the bank, and none of the luxuries that most poor people in the US have (statistics show most of our "poor" have houses, cars, TVs, computers, etc.) So I guess this tragedy could lead to a lot of people who are actually "poor" by international standards.

Re:I wonder...

[DerWulf]

you are wrong. Totally, too. Fascism is Socialism plus Nationalism. Go read some good dammend books on the third reich before you impose your ignorance on the unsupecting public. Hitlers government rested fully on the total support of the population which they bought with enourmous government hand-outs. Aside from obvious 'outsiders' (jewish people, non-germans) people weren't oppressed in any way. As for the economoy, price caps, production quotas or out-right nationalization of select industries is certainly not a capitalists wet-dream.
Btw, the "founders" of fascism agree with me, with is obvious seeing that they named their party National Socialist German Worker Party (Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter Partei -> NSDAP). Now go play with your pinko friends.

Re:I wonder...

[Pfhor]

could garantee every person in Venezuela western style medical care, diet, and education.

So you mean McDonalds, Expensive treatment for their eventual diabetes and obesity surges, and a gutted educational system where most students don't even have an 8th grade reading level by the time they graduate highschool?

Re:I wonder...

[Ihlosi]

Aside from obvious 'outsiders' (jewish people, non-germans

homosexuals, gypsies, communists, social democrats, mentally handicapped people, anyone who did not join at least one Nazi organization (couldn't get a job if you didn't), authors, priests, anyone being critical about the regime, (the list goes on) ... ) people weren't oppressed in any way.

Maybe you should read the friken right good dammend books yourself.

Re:I wonder...

[DerWulf]

my gosh. I know that the nazi regime was horrible to certain minorities but the fact remains that the nazis treated (in the nazis view) 'straight' germans almost benevolent. This is a notable point because it stands in sharp contrast to most other dictatorships (like North Korea) where the majority is actually treated like shit and held down with violence. Ignoring it only leads to wrong conclusions and a false understanding of what happened back then. I'm sorry that my post was a little brief, but being a german and thus dealing with this topic often, I'm just not patient enough to preface every single statement about the nazis with dislcaimers mentioning how horrible they where. That's a given.

Re:I wonder...

[JWW]

C'mon admit it, you've actually read and believe Carl Marx haven't you?

Communism as described by Marx is the ideal political system. In practice the human nature of the (required) party leaders always turns them into manacial dictators, since they have to by definition control EVERYTHING!! Marx was an idiot, well intentioned maybe, but an idiot none theless. Communist governments that move away from communism always move to a more free market economy (of course its the only direction they can go). While you claim that China is more Fascist than communist and you are correct, the Facist leanings come from the fact that they haven't yet completely let go of their control of the people (a holdover from communism). Eventually as the free market economy in China matures, more an more people will gain more economic power and from that they will also eventually gain a voice in their government (you are only really pretending that they had one under communism).

In the end property rights are the only thing that shows that you are free. If you can have things that are "yours", then you are free, if nothing is yours, you are not. The utopian philosophy that everything is "ours" never works out.

Re:I wonder...

[jimbro2k]

A point of info:
I was in Venezuela last month. Gasoline prices were between 9 and 13 US CENTS!! per gallon.
If you elect a bunch of Texas oil millionaires to the presidency, why are you surprised that the US oil companies reported the greatest profits in their history (over 100 years for some of them)?

Re:I wonder...

[TheSync]

The truth is that Chavez is doing really good stuff (from an economic/capitalist standpoint) and really bad stuff.

The good stuff he is doing is enabling people without title to their land to obtain formal title. Lack of formal title to land is a huge economic drag to many developing economies. People are also being better protected against government land-apropriation in "renewal" projects (like the kind going on in Zimbabwe that made tens of thousands homeless).

On the other hand, inflation is very high, and government oil revenues are basically being squandered. If oil prices decline (a big if these days), the government will have real funding problems.

Re:I wonder...

[Miamicanes]

EXACTLY what happened in Miami after Andrew. People who otherwise wouldn't have been particularly affected by Andrew turned on CNN, saw reports that people were paying $10 for a bag of ice in Miami, and promptly ran out, rented a U-Haul truck, filled it with bagged ice, and headed down to Miami.

When they arrived, they quickly discovered that they weren't alone. In fact, *SO MANY* people had the exact same idea that the price of ice fell to $5/bag within a day, then $3, then $2, then $1. People can bitch about how terrible it is to exploit disaster victims, but the fact is, due to greed, a HELL of a lot of bagged ice became available in Miami... ice that wouldn't otherwise have been available. While government agencies and relief organizations were holding meetings to plan their strategic response, millions of bags of ice were already on their way.

The truth is, guys were selling bagged ice for $2-3 out of trucks RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from government aid caravans giving it away for free. The difference was, getting free ice meant waiting in line for an hour or two. Buying it from the guy with a truck might have cost ten bucks, but it meant you could be heading home in 30 seconds. Later, as competition increased, the ice guys started driving up and down streets like ice cream trucks and offered to-the-door delivery.

Personally, I wish stores WOULD jack up the cost of things like D cells and plywood before the storm... it would stop a$$#0735 from trying to buy a six-week supply at the last minute, wiping out the stores and ensuring that most people can't buy them at ANY price. If people KNEW that D cells would cost four times as much the day before a storm hits, and twice as much for a day or two afterward, they'd be more likely to stock up on them ahead of time... or at least, buy just enough to get through the next few days.

Re:I wonder...

[MorePower]

You yourself state that it's against the law to hire illegal aliens. So businesses don't knowingly do that. Illegal aliens usually use fraudulent SSN's and other forged documents to get work. So the taxes, social security, etc generally are still collected.

Re:I wonder...

[CFTM]

Pat Robertson, who is the numbskull who made that comment, is not a politician. He's a televangilist and at the risk of taking hyperbole too far, is akin to Osama Bin Laden. All he's doing is using his religious platform and his own ego to attempt to change the world; fucking evangelical christians.

I know that final statement is far too broad because there are many many many wonderful evangelical christians who legitamitely care about other people and want what's best for groups at large but there are a few really really bad apples.

Re:I wonder...

[MemeRot]

Socialism is not communism. The USA is a socialist country: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, environmental impact studies before construction, etc., just not to the extent that many European countries are. Those european countries, though more socialist than us, also have absolutely nothing to do with communism. Pure capitalism has never been practiced anywhere in the world. I personally wish we paid for universal health care, as we as a country spend enough on medicine to provide it and don't.

Re:I wonder...

[demachina]

"Argentina? Nope. Chile? Nope"

Actually as long as you are talking recent history, not necessarily today, its Argentina? Yep and Chile? Yep. Guatemala? Yep. Haiti? Yep. Nicaragua? Yep. Dominican Republic? Yep. El Salvador? Yep. Columbia? Yep. Panama? Yep. (Noriega was a CIA stooge until they had a falling out) .....

The Fascist dictatorship count in the Western Hemisphere is down lately as some of these countries have restored varying degrees of Democracy but its not really any thanks to the United States. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the U.S. also lost some of the incentive for installing anti communist dictators.

"But, this hasn't happened for quite a long time now."

Iraq is pretty obviously regime change by force. If the U.S. gets its way they are going to arrange for Allawi to win the next round of elections because he is the U.S. backed puppet there. It was a set back when he got thrown out in the first round of elections.

The U.S. is still quite active in changing governments around the world though most of the focus lately has been in Asia, especially around the edges of the old Soviet Union. Uzbekistan is in the process of expelling the U.S. military from the base Uzbekistan provided to wage the war in Afghanistan, because the U.S. was apparently using to try and destabilize and topple its host government. Removing the curren Uzbek government would probably be an improvement but the U.S. has also gleefully sent people there through Rendition to be tortured.

The U.S. has attempted regime Venezuela at least twice since the Bush administration came to power. The Army got cold feet the first time when they observed the person siezing power was going to install a dictatorship so they restored Chavez to power in 2 days. In 2004 another alleged coup was broken up.

The interesting part form the Wikipedia article:

"In June 2004, a Cuban Miami TV channel broadcasted a program featuring the Florida-based Comandos F4. Rodolfo Frometa, the Comandos F4 leader, said that his group was ready to carry out violent attacks against the Cuban government. Former Venezuelan army captain Eduardo García described the help he received from Comandos F4 to organize similar violent actions against the Chávez government. According to the TV program maker Randy Alonso, the US government would have recently earmarked $36 million to support such paramilitary groups. [7] U.S. officials and opposition figures in Venezuela have dismissed this claim. Alonso went into hiding. Many media reports, and his official website, suggested that he had fled the country."

Another likely case of CIA backed regime change is the Rose Revolution in Georgia and the installation of the pro U.S. Mikheil Saakashvili. The Rose Revolution was painted as pro democracy and pro reform but it looks increasingly like it was just another case of regime change to install a pro American puppet.

The U.S. was also actively involved in the Orange revolution in the Ukraine though certainly they backed the better of the two options there.

U.S. interference in the internal affairs of other countries and active engagement in regime change continues unabated and is in fact accelerating under the Bush administration.

Sure they are installing people somewhat less bad than the military dicators of old but only slightly so, and they are still frequently manipulating outcomes to the benefit U.S. interests more than the interests of people that live in those countries.

"Or aren't these people rich enough?"

The DOJ was compelled to lynch some rich people in the face of rampant scandal and a public out cry that something be done. Those cases are far more exceptions than the rule. Its noteworthy that George W.'s close friend Ken Lay is still most definitely not in jail.

Your kidding yourself or tryi

Re:I wonder...

[williamyf]

I stand corrected. You are absolutely right. So, the sentence should read:

When we had our disaster (there was a typo here) in (Dec) 1999, the US administration back then ....

Thankyou, really!

Suerte a todos y feliz dia!

Re:I wonder...

[ucblockhead]

You seem to have reading comprehension problems. I'm talking about countries and not individuals.

I am an American and as an individual, I certain intend to help. And also I think my government, the American government, the richest government in the world, ought to help.

But I don't see why a poorer country like, say, Mexico, should help. Individual rich mexicans, yes, but the country? That country has it's own troubles to deal with.

Re:I wonder...

[Darby]

Not sure there is a name for my idealogy or that I fit on any of the idealogy charts.

Yes. You are a moderately left-leaning Liberal.

In a nutshell, you have Liberals. They hold this truth to be self-evident: That all people are created equal.
They believe in individual rights above all.

Then you have the left and the right. They are the same in the fact that they believe in the power of the state over individual liberty.

Right wing extremists like the current administration and their supporters do things like attempt to shove the Church into government to extend their control, pass amendments to the constitution to promote oppression of certain groups, start wars to transfer wealth from the poor and middle class to the very wealthy etc.

Left wing extremists like Stalin, Pol Pot, and that sort use the state to sort of equalize wealth, but it invariably has meant they get it all and a fuckload of people die.
America doesn't have much of anybody to the extreme left. Mostly what we have on the so called American left are moderate right wingers and Left Fascists (see the Senator from Disney, the DMCA etc for examples of this particular type of shitbag).

The left agrees with the Liberals as to the fact of equality of all people but they feel it is necessary to use the power of the state to promote and enforce it. This is demonstrated in the worst case by Leninist/Stalinist type governments. Of course, it turns out even there that some people are more equal than others.
It is demonstrated in the best case (IMHO) by things like the 13th amendment and some civil rights legislation.

The right disagrees with the Liberal belief that all people are equal and further they believe in using the power of the state to *prevent* this.
This is why right wing parties are always the party of the wealthy elite.

So based upon how you described your political beliefs, you are a Liberal " I am a libertarian when it comes to personal freedoms"

But you do believe (as any sane person does at this point) that some level of governemnt influence is necessary to prevent the destruction of equality.

"Progressive only when it comes to the need to regulate and check big corporations and the rich, ".

So you are a moderately leftist Liberal.
Welcome to the club:-)

Re:I wonder...

[nester]

In a pure free market, we wouldn't have FEMA, we'd have entreprenuers demanding families' life savings in exchange for life preservers and clean water.

Which would encourage others to sell them, and eventually bring down the price. See below, the post about ice.

Re:I wonder...

[Darby]

In fact, there are not many (if any) citizens in Cuba and Venezuela that surpass the financial level of their govts. In contrast, here in the USA, there are more private citizens financially better off than the members of the govt. Hell, you add of the top few hundred USA citizens wealth and they surpass what the legislative body of the govt. makes.

Since the richest in the US then get to basically tell the government what to do, you aren't demonstrating much of a real difference here. That's why IMHO Libertarianism can't work economically (I'm not the one who said that originally, but anyhow).
To maintain a healthy market, a healthy economy, and a healthy society, I think that some level of government intervention is necessary.
I think it is blatantly obvious and has been demonstrated so many times that anybody still pushing Laissez-Faire is either pretty well uninformed or they're trying to fuck me.

As greater wealth accumulates in fewer hands, those with it will tend to use it to fuck everybody else. That's human nature sad but true.

Of course both the Democrat and the Republican parties are totally fucked, so I voted for Badnarik in the last election even though I don't think his economic policies are really workable.

IMHO our most important problem is getting rid of the 2 party system through voting reform. That would actually create the possibility for issues to be discussed by politicians in a sane manner rather than the Black/White polarized bullshit that passes for debate in this country these days.

The views of the Libertarian party at least come from a good place (individual liberty) so I think it's very important to get them out there even if I think following their economic policies whole hog would be a disaster.

Re:I wonder...

[Rycross]

Thank you for your aid. Rest assured that those of us without our heads up our arses appreciate it.

Re:I wonder...

[rcs1000]

Re Ken Lay - it's by no means clear he is guilty. Unlike the others he was not a benificiary of the so-called "special partnerships". And prosecutors tend to follow the money trail :- if you benefited finacially from illegal acts, then you're probably guilty. "The Smartest Guys in the Room" is a terrific book about Enron and well worth a read.

But, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "since the collapse of the Soviet Union the U.S. also lost some of the incentive for installing anti communist dictators."

Frankly, the world has benefitted from not having two super-powers with nuclear weopons installing client states. (Tell me the Soviet Union wasn't guilty of funding some very unpleasant communist regimes.)

My fear is that we now have two super-powers again (China and the US), and both will go back to sponsoring client regimes with little regard for local people.

But still, to come back to my original point: people get in boats to leave communist dictatorships to come to the US, not the other way round.

Re:I wonder...

[zoney_ie]

The real world isn't black and white.

We manage here in Europe to have bits of capitalism and socialism. And furthermore, here in Ireland (and in the UK) we manage to balance it well (avoiding the mainland Europe stagnant economies and joblessness). Admittedly we've the usual problems with inept politicians, so we're not some kind of paradise. But it's a more pleasant place to be if you're not rich than the US is. And it's not like the rich are taxed heavily. Sure 45% looks like a lot, but some of the rich here avail of tax breaks to pay less than ordinary workers (and yes, I find that an outrage, but the point is we are far from communist). Having a Welfare State and restraints on the market is not incompatible with a democratic semi-capitalist state.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

It's perfectly right to decry rampant unrestrained capitalism - each man for himself. The government should take care of the citizens - I can scarce believe that the poor, sick and elderly were left behind in New Orleans rather than evacuated by bus or rail. In fact, they're going to have to do that anyways now, albeit with it now much more difficult and many having been washed away.

Re:I wonder...

[Monkelectric]

Yes, there are desperately poor people in other parts of the world. The thing that I was really striving at was that every country in the world is either:

A. Trying to take us out
B. Has the false conception that we are so rich and powerful that we could fix all of their problems if only we cared about our fellow humans enough to do so -- and are angry that we have not. Even when they can't be bothered to help eachother.

Re:I wonder...

[mirio]

In a pure free market, we wouldn't have FEMA, we'd have entreprenuers demanding families' life savings in exchange for life preservers and clean water.

I call complete and total bullshit.

How much is the American Red Cross charging for water down there?

There has always been a place for charity and over the course of the last few international tragedies (911, Tsunamis, etc) people (especially private American citizens who donated more money to Tsunami victims than most western nations!) have demonstrated that charity is something that works in times of crisis.

I'm not saying the government shouldn't help these people in need, but it's not like there would be no drinking water or shelter for these people without the government.

Re:I wonder...

[slashdot_commentator]

you are wrong. Totally, too. Fascism is Socialism plus Nationalism.

Pathetic. Only you could present that utterly incorrect definition, and then claim I am totally wrong. Can you please cite a reference indicating otherwise?

You're telling me that the difference between Fascist Germany and the Soviet Union was that the Soviet Union was not nationalistic? You're telling me the difference between Fascist Italy and Sweden is that Sweden is not nationalistic?

Hitlers government rested fully on the total support of the population which they bought with enourmous government hand-outs

So now you're going to say that the United States was a Fascist or Socialist state during the 1930's?

As for the economoy, price caps, production quotas or out-right nationalization of select industries is certainly not a capitalists wet-dream.

It also does not mean it a Fascist state or a Communist state. That is why each political/economic philosophy connotes specific tenets. The Fascists' highest priority is the health of THE STATE. It is certainly capable of price caps, production quotas, and nationalization of industries. But PHILOSOPHICALLY, its only a MEANS, not an ENDS (Communism). As for calling Fascism a form of Socialism, Socialism does not require "purification" of the people, nor is Socialism's priority the maximization of national productivity.

You do not need price caps, production quotas, and outright federal confiscation of industry to be a Fascist state. Fascism IS a Capitalist wet dream if you're a Capitalist who can call the shots, like Bill Gates. Oh, now you're going to tell me Gates is not a Capitalist? Fascism is not the wet dream for the small business owner, but no country practices Adam Smith economics. Now you're going to tell me the US does not practice Capitalism? Fascism's tenet is "What's good for the country is good for everyone". Fascism favors national elites; that includes Big Business.

Go read some good dammend books on the third reich before you impose your ignorance on the unsupecting public.

Like "The Rise & Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer"? Like "Inside the Third Reich, by Albert Speer"? Like the political science textbook (who's name excapes me) so I could pass the damn class? I must admit I never got around to reading Mein Kampf, but I would have, if I had an unlimited lifespan....

Btw, the "founders" of fascism agree with me, with is obvious seeing that they named their party National Socialist German Worker Party (Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter Partei -> NSDAP).

"National Socialism" is Fascism, not Socialism. It was a (poorly, IMO) name used to differentiate their political party from the Communists, and to attract voters AT THE HEIGHT OF AN ECONOMIC DEPRESSION. There is NOTHING I have come across in my limited reading of FASCISM and SOCIALISM that tells me how Nazi Germany practicing price caps, production quotas, and nationalization made it a Socialist state, or how the United States practicing price caps, production quotas, gov't owned industry, made it a Socialist state. It appears to be a contradiction because you are a retard who does not understand the established, academic differentiation between Fascism, Socialism, and Communism. Oh yeah, Moussolini beat "your founder" of Fascism by at least a decade.

Look, you conservative jackoff, everything that is bad is not the definition of Socialism. Socialism nor Fascism is what your Daddy said it was. Fascism is not a subcategory of Socialism. Nazis using the word Socialism in their political party's name does not make it Socialist party. Go take a freaking political science class in an accredited college so you can go flunk the class. Or at least cite references with relevant excerpts that would show you're not a retard.

Now go play with your pinko friends.

I have no pinko friends. Some of my friends are Canadian, does that count? All of my friends are educated, does that count?

Re:I wonder...

[DerWulf]

Go read: Hitlers Volksstaat by Götz Aly
Well respected historican that details just how socialistic germany was under hitler. The answer is: very. No elites at all, certainly not economic ones. Redistribution was the name of the game. With sources to boot the author makes a strong argument for his thesis: germany used the war to finance a lavish welfare state.

Argh nevermind. You are so blinded by your fear to have to accept that another murderoeus regime was really guided by your very principles. Seeing one speech of hitler, or just a party higher-up will communicate in no uncertain terms that equality within the german population (of course excluding all non-germans, per the nazi definition) was the ultimate goal of every economic policy. Where I come from that's called socialism. They walked the walk and danced the dance ... how in the hell can you insist on setting them arpart?

Re:I wonder...

[Bimo_Dude]

Why should the people of two nations depend on the personal relations of those two nations leaders?

You hit on one of the big problems that has plagued the world for thousands of years.

It seems to me that the people of any given country are not really likely to hate the people of another country, unless they are coerced to by the powers that be (through propaganda, scare tactics, whatever).

Having served in the US Army during the cold war, I was trained to hate Russians, to want to kill them. Currently, one of my best friends is Russian. Nice guy. He had served in the Soviet Army, and was trained to hate Americans, and to want to kill us.

The problems between countries are usually between the "leaders" of these countries, not the people themselves.

Re:I wonder...

[slashdot_commentator]

C'mon admit it, you've actually read and believe Carl Marx haven't you?

I am ashamed to admit, I never read direct tracts "from the master". And that's Karl, not Carl.

Communism as described by Marx is the ideal political system.

What's not to like about the equality of citizens? What's so terrible about making sure everyone can be fed? If one is incapable of sustaining their existence (because they are orphans or handicapped), are they human refuse that should starve to death? Is the extent of my human value the effort I expend at my employment? Does that mean a policeman has less value to society than a sports athlete because he's paid less?

In practice the human nature of the (required) party leaders always turns them into manacial dictators, since they have to by definition control EVERYTHING!!

Hmmm. That would explain George W Bush. And given your tenet that human nature makes party leaders maniacal dictators, we should abolish all political parties. Which by the way, is what early Communist thinkers advocated. (The devolution of centralized gov't into popular collectives that locally determined all aspects that affected themselves.) You Communist you...

Marx was an idiot, well intentioned maybe, but an idiot none theless.

Ah, if you're well intentioned, and the concept you present happens to be "wrong", then you are an idiot. Well gee, either I believe Einstein is an idiot, for pursuing a Unified Field Theory and disclaiming Quantum physics (where he was "wrong"), and the other geniuses thoroughout the human civilization that had incorrect theories, or I can believe you are an idiot.

Communist governments that move away from communism always move to a more free market economy (of course its the only direction they can go).

No. Russia is not a "free" market economy. A kleptocracy would be a better description. Its arguable whether the United States is a real "free" market ecnoomy.

While you claim that China is more Fascist than communist and you are correct,

Congratulations. Out of all the turds here, at least YOU can correctly acknowlege when I've said something we agree on...

the Facist leanings come from the fact that they haven't yet completely let go of their control of the people (a holdover from communism).

*Sigh*. No, the Fascist leanings is not a residue of Communism. Fascism is where I believe the Central Committee want China to go. You CAN have aspects of the "free market" in a Fascist gov't. Whether corruption will devolve China's economy enough to proclaim it is not a "free market" remains to be seen. European fascism and war did not allow the gov'ts to last long enough in "normal" conditions to see if devolution of the "free market" was inevitable.

Eventually as the free market economy in China matures, more an more people will gain more economic power and from that they will also eventually gain a voice in their government

Ah, classic Capitalist propaganda and wishful thinking. Economic power is the centralization of wealth. The Chinese central committee uses the gov't to make sure they are in the catbird seat of any major economic enterprise in China; either as shareholders or directors. If a couple of outside individuals gain influence in gov't, does that mean China becomes a classical democracy?

(you are only really pretending that they had one under communism).

Presuming you're a USA citizen, you really pretending you have political power in this country. (Unless you are a major shareholder in a Fortune 100 company, own a major media outlet, or belong to a bloodline of prominent political families.)

Re:I wonder...

[JWW]

You argue fairly well, it would be even better if you backed of on the ad homeniem attacks.

You have so many issues with capitalism, its amazing. The big thing I think you miss is that what really keeps american capitalism working is the middle class and not the super rich. Sure there are super rich, and sure their skills and their importance to society may be out of wack with what they should be (ie. the cop vs. the athelete), but really for the great majority of Americans, capitalism works. When the middle class has issues it will raise its political voice. I really think that there is a potential for a third party to really shake things up at the moment. There is a vast undercurrent of opinion out there on issues where the Democrats and the Republicans just simply hold the same position, this makes them vunerable for a third party to come in, when that happens it will be middle class voters who will get them into office (or force change from the other parties).

You really sound like you would have done better as an indian in pre-Columbous america. They are the only type of egalitarian society I can think of that might have ever really fit your mindset. Of course that is internal to each tribe, from tribe to tribe there was confilct and fighting, but its closer to what appears to be your dream than anything else. But on of the reasons they could be like this was the extreme abundance of resources they had in relation to their population size.

Re:I wonder...

[slashdot_commentator]

Go read: Hitlers Volksstaat by Götz Aly

ONE "renown" German historian that does not exist on the Internet outside of German language webpage or a German textbook does not get to set the definition of Socialism, or determine that the Nazis were a Socialist gov't. Anymore than ONE "renown" historian (David Irving) denying there was a Holocaust is to be taken as historical fact.

Obviously, you ignore my obvious point that practices that can be construed as Socialist does not mean the political party that enacted them IS Socialist in philosophy. FDR and the American Democratic Party was not a Socialist party, regardless of what you, and some pissed off Hoover Republicans may have felt at the time.

You are so blinded by your fear to have to accept that another murderoeus regime was really guided by your very principles.

1) I am not a Socialist in principle. 2) I do not beleive Socialism "in principle" is INcapable of being a murderous regime. Stalin ran quite a murderous regime, and Communism is not that much different than Socialism. Also, if one is to believe that the USA is a Socialist state (and you seem to think so, given its progressive tax policy, gov't works programs, and "heavy" regulation of private industry), it has conducted quite a few murderous acts in the name of the people. (Whether its conducting syphillis experiments on black people, slaughtering Vietnamese civilians in the name of Democracy, or slaughtering Salvadorian and Nicaraguan civilians.) Yet, an example of a welfare state that conducts mass murder eludes me. Perhaps there is something positive to say about Socialism...

The whole point of my original screed is to recognise there are distinct (if elusive), definitive differences between Fascism, Socialism, and Communism. Each philosophy will conduct similar and dissimilar policies. BUT the specifics of what they do or not do is dependent upon the tenets each philosophy is based. The reason why political scientists makes those distinctions is that it DOES result in differences in how each gov't conducts the specifics of its gov't policies, and its results.

They are ALL arguably UNDESIRABLE. BUT THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT in the manner of how they are undesirable. I will not tolerate deliberate or ignorant application of terms to either generate a propagandistic knee jerk reaction, OR obfuscate an argument in order to avoid being caught in a logical or argument flaw.

or just a party higher-up will communicate in no uncertain terms that equality within the german population [...] was the ultimate goal of every economic policy.

Please produce a few of these. I agree that would be a tenet of Socialism. (But that's redistribution of wealth to dissolve class distinctions, not progressive tax policy.)

Re:I wonder...

[That's Unpossible!]

So businesses don't knowingly do that.

Yes they do, they just pay them under the table.

Illegal aliens usually use fraudulent SSN's and other forged documents to get work. So the taxes, social security, etc generally are still collected.

No, most illegal aliens find illegal work where they are paid under the table.

Re:I wonder...

[stinky wizzleteats]

I ASSume it could also be used to power air conditioners. Presumably, that would be somewhat useful.

I looked at my air conditioner, and couldn't figure out where to pour in the heating oil. How does that work? It would be useful during a power outage.

Re:I wonder...

[SilverspurG]

that jargon has SPECIFIC meaning

Too bad you never make any attempt at defining the meaning. Your entire platform is full of muddied associations.

is the imposition of "equal" redistribution of wealth amongst its citizens

And, in every implementation of communism in the modern world, this is accomplished by setting up a system to benefit commercial enterprise, regulated by the government, with the purported goal of equalizing the incomes of the working class. Have you ever studied the way things work in real life, or do you always insist on arguing based on what you read verbatim out of someone else's textbook?

But Sweden did not take EVERYTHING from everyone

No where in socialist ideals is everything taken from everyone. Socialism has graduated degrees and different avenues of implementation. But, as is usual, you ignore this very blatant reality so that you can continue to argue your vague textbook definitions.

A communist gov't confiscates all industry and thus controls business and the economy

That's what I said, except I'm no longer vulnerable to the artificial difference between an industry which is regulated by the government and one which is owned by the government. Take the blinders off someday. You might have to concede losing an argument (probably a first for you) but you'll end up better for it.

A socialist gov't controls industry

It is a communist government which controls industry. Socialism and communism are often inseparable. With your pea-sized brain and your blinders on I'm not surprised that you've never made the distinction.

You really think any political scientist uses that to define Fascism? You fucking retard

Not really. Political scientists like you tend to get off on argument and abusive language, as you've demonstrated. You don't really care about a succinct definition.

Have you ever had a conversation where every single one of your statements didn't end in an insult? You need serious psychological assistance for your anger problem and your inferiority complex.

Re:I wonder...

[SilverspurG]

you ignore my obvious point that practices that can be construed as Socialist does not mean the political party that enacted them IS Socialist in philosophy

If it swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can call it whatever you like, but it's still a duck.

The whole point of my original screed is to recognise there are distinct (if elusive), definitive differences between Fascism, Socialism, and Communism.

Oh? Last you responded to me you didn't point out anything distinctive between the three except to point to examples of regimes which have been traditionally labelled as one or another. No where did you ever even make an attempt at defining what distinguishes one, in principle, from the others. You keep using the words "communism, fascism, and socialism" over and over and over... but in every instance they're part of context. No where do you ever offer a concrete definition for any of them.

You're a product of the times, in that fashion, because everyone else in politics is just like you. With fewer concrete definitions being offered the debate is open to rage on (including your usual quota of derogatory remarks and insults) as long as you have posts left today.

The reason why political scientists makes those distinctions

Over and over and over you invoke political scientists and distinctions... yet you never make any. if the ability to sidestep the requirement for a solid definition makes a political scientist, then perhaps they should be renamed political charlatans.

Re:I wonder...

[ArtStone]

>>There are serious questions about were all that money is going.

Well, one place the money is going is to buy 100,000 AK-47s and 40 MI-35 helicopters from Russia for a total of $5 billion:

http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/368/14956_wea pons.html

Re:I wonder...

[Ihlosi]

I looked at my air conditioner, and couldn't figure out where to pour in the heating oil. How does that work? It would be useful during a power outage.

This might be news to you, but air conditioners run on electricity. Now, contrary to popular belief, eletricity is not magically generated in the power outlet, but needs to be generated using something called a generator and an energy source. Heating oil makes an excellent energy source (if you slap on enough taxes, the stuff is also called Diesel fuel), so go find yourself a generator that runs on Diesel fuel, and you're set for the next power outage.

Re:I wonder...

[Confuzzled]

You don't live there. He was not democratically elected, the vote to oust him was rigged. The country is not peaceful, it hasn't been ever since we decided he needed to go. It's a sad thing to say, but sometimes I wonder if it would be better if someone powerful wanted him dead.

Re:I wonder...

[Confuzzled]

Please stop it... you have no possible clue what's going on in the country. You don't live there, you've possibly never even been there once.

What you talk about the elections is completely wrong. The armed forces did not recognize him, in fact many of the high ranking military officials marched in civil disobedience (desacato?) against him.

Re:I wonder...

[ArtStone]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Pat Robertson run for President of the United States in 1988? Some also credit Robertson with having an effect on turnout in the 2004 election. I think that may qualify him as a politician (not to be confused with elected officeholder)

What is possibly more interesting is to find out if he actually had a classified source that leaked information to him that the US was considering doing something about Chauvez. I wouldn't mind seeing Robertson sweat under some Congressional Hearing TV cameras.

On the other hand, if the pro-Castro Democrats look took much like they have blood lust, that will only help the Republicans in 2006 and 2008. Every political force needs a boogeyman to be the unifying force.

The net effect of doing this stupid thing is he now has seriously tied the US's hands, and built up support for Chauvez among those who otherwise might not have cared.

Re:I wonder...

[ccp]

I've heard no one support Pat Robertson's comments -- in fact Bush completely and utterly condemned Robertson's comments.

Two words: Trial balloon.

Cheers,

Carlos Cesar

Re:I wonder...

[ccp]

Chavez also constantly says the US is planning to invade Venezuela.

If you're willing to believe everything the man says without question, he's perfectly willing to lie about the US.

One word: Irak

Cheers,

Carlos Cesar

Re:I wonder...

[dcw3]

I saw families -- families -- mom, dad, and kids -- living homeless on the street. On the street. The little girls would lift up their skirts, squat, and pee, right on the sidewalk. That's something you don't see very often in the US.

You're mostly correct about the families. However, I've seen grown women squat and pee in Germany and Korea...not all cultures take offense to it.

Re:I wonder...

[gfreeman]

I admire Tiger Woods, but that doesn't make me a golfer.

Re:I wonder...

[gfreeman]

Has the false conception that we are so rich and powerful that we could fix all of their problems if only we cared about our fellow humans enough to do so

Oh, but you are "so rich and powerful". Go to the United Nations Building in NYC, take the tour, and pay special attention to the display outside the Economic & Social Council chambers. There's a long list of global problems and how many billions of dollars it would take to fix them. It also has a figure for the total global military budget, of which the US portion is no small fraction. Military spending far outweighs the projected costs for eradicating disease, hunger, poverty and slavery.

As for "can't be bothered to help each other", there are plenty of international associations worldwide, for the betterment of their participants. Whether these countries can be bothered or not has no bearing on the richness of the USA, so your last sentence is entirely emotive and has no substance wrt this argument.

Re:I wonder...

[DerWulf]

ONE "renown" German historian that does not exist on the Internet outside of German language webpage or a German textbook does not get to set the definition of Socialism, or determine that the Nazis were a Socialist gov't. Anymore than ONE "renown" historian (David Irving) denying there was a Holocaust is to be taken as historical fact.

Well, just like the other way around, german litrature and movies need some time to propagate, internationally. Here is a link to an article on the stated book, by a magazin that is Germanys equivalent of Times Magazine.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,15 18,347726,00.html
Judge for yourself.

recognise there are distinct (if elusive)
But I do. It's just that facism isn't much more than an extension of socialism. While using the same economic policies and more importantly policy goals, unlike pure (state) socialism, it restricts the number of 'eligable people' by race and strongly focuses on nationalistic ideals/symbol. Yeah there is a difference but it's small and just pertains to the surface. Make-up, if you will.

Says Hitler:
http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-12-22.html

(beware, is known to cause nausea)

And this recognition of the facts discloses at once a whole series of the most important fundamental principles which must guide this young Movement which, we hope, is destined one day for greatness:

1. 'NATIONAL' AND 'SOCIAL' ARE TWO IDENTICAL CONCEPTIONS. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it ''National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the state and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it.

2. And then we said to ourselves: THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS CLASSES: THEY CANNOT BE. Class means caste and caste means race. If there are castes in India, well and good; there it is possible, for there there were formerly Aryans and dark aborigines. So it was in Egypt and in Rome. But with us in Germany where everyone who is a German at all has the same blood, has the same eyes, and speaks the same language, here there can be no class, here there can be only a single people and beyond that nothing else. Certainly we recognize, just as anyone must recognize, that there are different 'occupations' and 'professions' [Stände]-there is the Stand of the watchmakers, the Stand of the common laborers, the Stand of the painters or technicians, the Stand of the engineers, officials, etc. Stände there can be. But in the struggles which these Stände have amongst themselves for the equalization of their economic conditions, the conflict and the division must never be so great as to sunder the ties of race.

So of course this still could be a ruse. You know, propaganda. So lets see this ..
Please produce a few of these. I agree that would be a tenet of Socialism. (But that's redistribution of wealth to dissolve class distinctions, not progressi

Re:I wonder...

[Doc Ruby]

I have not been to Venezuela. But I'm betting that you are from there (or maye you're just attached to some privileged client of the old elite class). With your broadband Internet connection since the days of Slashdot IDs in the 400s, you probably had money before the failed coup to depose Chavez. Which is why you're defending the coup, and the traitorous group of top officials who led the military coup backed by the CIA and the US State Department (around the time our government deposed and kidnapped Aristide in Haiti, a couple of years ago). Because you want to keep your piece of the old class structure that divided up the country's vast oil wealth among only the European-descended upper classes, rather than invest it broadly in all the citizens who own it. Which is why Chavez was both elected, and reelected, by decisive margins, validated by foreign observers, including Americans.

So your blanket denial doesn't mean anything but that Chavez still has a lot of work to do. And my refusal to buy your propaganda means that your work is futile. Now get back to work on actually working with your country, rather than against it. Why do you hate Venezuela?

Re:I wonder...

[Monkelectric]

Im a liberal, and what you're saying is liberal bullshit :) Im talking about the people in their own countries trying to fix their own problems, instead of waiting for some imagined saviour to notice them.

And guess what, all that military spending? Keeps the world from being a lot fucking worse then it is right now (wars to avenge your daddy not-withstanding). These talking points are SO boring, so cliche, and so off the mark.

Re:I wonder...

[gfreeman]

You are labouring under the misconception that there is always an infrastructure in place that enables an instant fix. Given a few hundred years, the poor and needy will indeed work their way out of the gutter. Comparitively.

There's no imagined saviour. What's missing are the tools to do the job. Do you honestly think that the world is on its knees asking, no, begging, for the US to come and help?

Historically, the west has caused much of the probems is faces right now. Not just the US, but other imperial powers of the past. British, French, Portuguese, Dutch ... Why be surpised when the effects come back and bite us on our ass? Clean up our own mess? Nah, fuck 'em.

Because something is boring, doesn't mean it is wrong. Because something is cliched, doesn't mean it is wrong either. So if less $$$ on guns and more $$$ on medicines is off the mark, what would you consider the real mark to be?

Re:I wonder...

[demachina]

"But still, to come back to my original point: people get in boats to leave communist dictatorships to come to the US, not the other way round."

I think you are oversimplifying. People go both ways. People wage multiyear wars to create communist states. Reference Vietnam and the Viet Cong though they were figthing more for Nationalism than Communism. Also the U.S. backed puppets in Vietnam, Diem and Thieu, were more despised than Ho Chi Minh. Ho Chi Minh sought to ally with the U.S. after World War II, the U.S. spurned him and pushed him in the arms of the Soviet Union.

Many people in Russia want to return to the old Soviet Union. As bad as it was, people had a somewhat better social safety net than they have now in Russia, the crime and exploitation was somewhat lower too.

Re:I wonder...

[Monkelectric]

There's no imagined saviour. What's missing are the tools to do the job. Do you honestly think that the world is on its knees asking, no, begging, for the US to come and help?

I think in 3rd world countries the hate of America stems from their expectations taht we should help them and their dismay at our apathy. But apathy isn't the right word, I'm looking for something more like "blissful ignorance". Most americans aren't even aware of crises which to the people in them are very serious.

The military argument is a strawman at best.

Re:I wonder...

[stinky wizzleteats]

OK, so I should buy a diesel generator for my air conditioner in case Venezuela decides to give me free heating oil. Got it. Thanks.

Re:I wonder...

[jav27]

before you continue with your pro-chavez rant, you should inform yourself better. A week ago, 4 patients died in a PUBLIC hospital because of lack of oxygen supplies. The hospital didnt have money to pay the bill. The health system in venezuela is in ruins, despite what the propaganda says. So it would be good if my "democratic" president decided to FIX our poor third world country instead of giving away OUR MONEY to foreign countries. WE NEED IT. but what do you know? you're surely living in a first world country, praising a "revolution" that doesnt affect you.

Re:I wonder...

[Ihlosi]

If you are so worried about power outages, you should already have a back-up generator. Regardless of whether you get the fuel for free or not.

Re:I wonder...

[Confuzzled]

Exactly. You have never been there, you have no idea. Yes I am from there, yes I'm from a "privileged" class (about lower-middle class in the US).

There is _zero_ evidence that the US had anything to do with the failed coup.

You're so completely off the rocker on "diving the oil wealth among the European-descended upper classes" that you really have _no_ clue what you're talking about. The government has always been corrupt, has always stolen from the people. Chavez is just more blatant about it and does it in the name of the poor (while he lives like a king).

The re-election was a scam. We managed to get over 4 million votes in order to go for re-election, yet somehow the results of the actual election were _backwards_, with only about 2 million people voting against him. The re-election signatures were properly validated. The election process was done with electronic voting machines, with no paper trails, and for some reason *hint hint* the machines had two way communications.

Why do you have to talk nonsense about what you don't know about? Me and my family have worked _hard_ to get where we are. My father started as a bank teller and made it to a manager position. I started working when I was 15, went to a public university (yes there are public universities that work relatively well, Chavez has actually hindered this as much as he could).

Inform yourself, go to the source, go down there.

Re:I wonder...

[MvD_Moscow]

So what if he is an admirer of Castro? At least he didn't support a corrupt government that was involved with the mafia led by Batista. You right wing need to learn that some things (human life?) are important than the free market and property rights. Doesn't it shock you that we have the capacity to eliminate hunger and poverty alll in one go, yet we are doing nothing to achieve this. And fuck trickle down economics and Reagan!

Misread...

[Psychor]

Did anyone else misread that headline and think the networks had started a "Pimp my City" show?

Re:Misread...

[__aaclcg7560]

Is that a new GTA game? Or a reality show? I get the two confused sometimes.

Re:Misread...

[sharkey]

They fucking cancelled Family Guy again?!?! For THIS!?!?!

The future....

[methangel]

A) Don't live by a freaking ocean. Oceans have hurricanes.

B) Don't live in a city that is 8 feet below sea level. Flooding WILL occur.

Problem solved.

Re:The future....

[RoadDoggFL]

Better not live anywhere that has any natural disaster at all.

Ever.

Re:The future....

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

The US government through FEMA gives these dopes the money to rebuild in the flood zones. End the subsidies, and restore the environment.

Re:The future....

[jemenake]

A) Don't live by a freaking ocean. Oceans have hurricanes. B) Don't live in a city that is 8 feet below sea level. Flooding WILL occur.

I mostly concur. Now, out here on the west coast, we don't get storms that do serious damage to our coastline... but New Orleans.... come ON! Go on Google Earth and look at it. It's like that whole place is built on sedement deposited from the Mississippi river. As soon as a sedement deposit breaks the surface of the water, they go build something on it. Note to self: Don't Do That!

Re:The future....

[mad.frog]

C) Or anyplace subject to earthquakes.
D) Or anyplace subject to volcanic activity.
E) Or anyplace subject to tornadoes.

Hmm... where does that leave?

Re:The future....

[ScrewMaster]

Where I live we have a region known as "Tornado Alley". Every few years some homes get ripped to shreds and some people get sucked into the air and dismembered ... but they still build there. Matter of fact, the amount of urban sprawl that is spreading to that area is astounding: not that many years ago it was cornfields and grain silos, with some livestock mixed in. Now it's pretty well-developed: lots of houses, malls, swimming pools. More targets, is how I look at it.

Re:The future....

[compwiz3688]

Canada! We're going to invade Canada for land!

Yeah, I'm Canadian, so here:
F) Or anyplace subject to below zero temperatures.

Re:The future....

[SpaceLifeForm]

You forgot that the 'soil' is constantly sinking. It is just silt from the Mississipi River that must be replenished. The levees prevent that re-silting which could maintain the elevation. New Orleans will eventually either disappear or have to be maintained in a different manner.

In the long run, it probably would be best to abandon the city entirely, but that won't happen, so, all the taxpayers in the U.S. will have to pay for it even if they don't live there.

Re:The future....

[williamyf]

Methangel, You are either insensitive, or wrote under the influence of meth ;-)

Going on your arguments, one by one:

a.) Actually, it is the east coast of the oceans the ones that have the hurricanes... That is why europe and California may see heavy rain but not hurricanes. In the East cost of the pacific ocean, the hurricanes are called Typoon (or is it typhoon) or Monzon....

b.) If global warming does indeed occur, sealevels will rise a tad (some estimate between 5 or 10 mteres, where 1inch = 2,54cm and 1cm=0,001meters). So, In the future, you can count on MANY MORE cities being below sea level. Would you relocate all of New York away from the ocean...

The dutch have been very busy for centuries building dams and pumping water out (with may of those windmills). That is why most of their territory is below sea level. One can wander: If something like that can be done to save some of those cities? and What will happen to the dutch?

The most frightening part is that the storm changed course in the last minute, and spared new orleans the bulk of it. Imagine what would have happened otherwise?

Suerte a todos y feliz dia!

Re:The future....

[Waffle Iron]

Better not live anywhere that has any natural disaster at all.

Are you at all familiar with the statistical concept called "odds"?

Re:The future....

[angle_slam]

The desert. Vegas and Phoenix are pretty immune to the things you listed above.

Re:The future....

[antifoidulus]

Or you could live in Japan which gets all of the above!(Well, I don't know how prevalent tornadoes are, but you do get a large mixture of natural disasters!)

Re:The future....

[w98]

G) anywhere you can't drink the water

guess that rules out heading to Mexico either

Re:The future....

[ben_white]

A) Don't live by a freaking ocean. Oceans have hurricanes. B) Don't live in a city that is 8 feet below sea level. Flooding WILL occur. Problem solved.

Nice if you plan cities in the 21st century based on an information economy with satellite recon of all flood and tidal basins. Not realistic in the real world where cities appear and evolve over centuries, and ocean side locations were vital to the economy, as they still are (check out this link from the la times and see if you still think it is reasonable to think that costal areas can be sparsely populated).

I do agree that most people who flock toward the coastal areas now do so for reasons other than that they make their living from the sea, but expecting people to suddenly see the light and move to Oklahoma is not realistic (besides tornados suck too).

cheers, ben

Re:The future....

[bozojoe]

Dont forget Godzilla

Re:The future....

[RoadDoggFL]

But the one time the odds fail you and an unlikely natural disaster wipes out your community you get a bunch of criticism for where you live. Plenty of people have lived in hurricane-prone areas and have never been hit. I grew up in West Palm Beach and my home wasn't hit until I left for three months last year, and in those three months West Palm was hit by three potentially devastating hurricanes.

Re:The future....

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not hard to fix: just set up a few empty trailer parks a few miles outside of town as decoys.

Re:The future....

[monstermonster]

You know, I lived in New Orleans for 4 years. And the whole time I lived there, all I could think of was the above. It's not like you can ever forget that you live under sea level - everything stinks of swamp, and more often than not rain leaves standing water everywhere.

I'm not going to blame the victims. Their lives suck right now. But I don't think any of them have the right to be surprised.

If I lie down on the train tracks, I shouldn't be shocked if I get hit by a train...

Re:The future....

[Sarcastic Assassin]

Why was this modded Insightful?

A) In the 18th and 19th century (when this city was being established by the French), its location (ie, near the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico) meant they could charge big $$$ for letting people use it. Also, according to Wikipedia, "The site was selected because it was a rare bit of natural high ground along the flood-prone banks of the lower Mississippi". So they were worried more about the "flood-prone Mississippi", not a rare and powerful hurricane.

B) This borders on stupid. Don't you think that people living in New Orleans (business owners, residents, etc) know and accept the risk? Or were you expecting them to be psychic, and forsee Katrina months before it occurred, and promptly sell all their property there, and move somewhere else?

Though, in the future, your comments will be noted, and greatly appreciated for their insight.

Re:The future....

[imbaczek]

Scandinavia

Re:The future....

[Blastrogath]

>Hmm... where does that leave?

In the mountains away from faults, significantly uphill from local rivers. Clear trees and long grass from around your house. Put a radiation counter (and carbon monoxide detector if you've got a gas furnace) in your basement.

Where I live there's only really danger from flooding rivers, forest fires, and radon gas buildup in basements.

Re:The future....

[RoadDoggFL]

But it would be reasonable to be surprised if you've done so for your entire life and have yet to see a single train.

Re:The future....

[Anonymous Coward]

In the long run, it probably would be best to abandon the city entirely, but that won't happen

Abandon New Orleans? But that would kill the "Girls gone wild" video industry! What would we do?

Re:The future....

[imsirovic5]

c) you were born in the area and have no choice but to live there?

Re:The future....

[Waffle Iron]

That's like the viewpoint of a compulsive gambler in a casino, focusing on the seemingly random pattern of his individual experience. However, the only rational way to look at it is by the overall odds.

Over the long term, for example, the casino gambler is virtually certain to lose large amounts of money. However, when you ask him about it, he'll undoubtedly focus on stories about how he occasionally won a big payout.

If you multiply the odds by the potential cost, you get the "expected value" of natural disasters at any given location. There is no escaping the fact that the expected yearly loss along the southeast coast is considerably higher than most other areas of the country, and New Orleans in particular really stands out. Why would any sane person build in a location that will on average expected to be inundated by floods multiple times in one lifetime?

Re:The future....

[sbaker]

And in the remaining places:

G) or anyplace with Poisonous snakes
H) ...or Poisonous spiders
I) ...or Poisonous scorpions

Re:The future....

[ColaMan]

But the one time the odds fail you and an unlikely natural disaster wipes out your community you get a bunch of criticism for where you live.

A large proportion is below sea level for fucks sake! This is not "an unlikely natural disaster". It's the darwin awards, for cities.

I can see the fark headline now:
(Dumbass) City built below sea level with an "ingenious system of levees and pumps" What could possibly go wrong?.

Hmm. Maybe I should go check fark....

Re:The future....

[ScrewMaster]

I dunno ... I read somewhere that the tornadoes are wising up and are getting harder to fool nowadays. You pretty much have to put real people in those trailers or it won't do any good.

Re:The future....

[JanneM]

Or you could live in Japan which gets all of the above!(Well, I don't know how prevalent tornadoes are, but you do get a large mixture of natural disasters!)

No tornadoes, but you do get quite a few typhoons (hurricanes by another name) every year. And while it's the earthquakes and volcanic eruptions that has people worried, typhoons are actually a lot more dangerous in the lives lost and property destroyed every year.

It seems a bit perverse, but the very frequencey of typhoons here probably makes Japan safer than, say the south-east coast of the US. They show up every year, more than once, and so everything is fairly well prepared for them. Nobody would dream of putting up something like a trailer park next to the ocean, for instance.

This goes within the country as well, by the way; we had one typhoon walk right across the entire country last summer, and even though it was really weakened by the time it came to Hokkaido, it did a lot more damage there than it did in Okinawa (which looks like typhoons are using it for target practice when you look at a yearly trace map).

Re:The future....

[NMerriam]

B) This borders on stupid. Don't you think that people living in New Orleans (business owners, residents, etc) know and accept the risk? Or were you expecting them to be psychic, and forsee Katrina months before it occurred, and promptly sell all their property there, and move somewhere else?

I don't think that was the point at all. If people want to live in an inherently dangerous place (dramatically moreso than other areas nearby) and take that risk, that's not a problem. The question is whether we as taxpayers should repeatedly fork out hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize the rebuilding, when we know that it is only a matter of time before it is completely destroyed all over again.

If poeple want to pay $80,000/year for insurance, more power to them.

Re:The future....

[mister_tim]

I lived most off my life in Sydney (in Australia, but not the capital city, for those of you who don't know).

Sydney is one of the most wonderful ocean-fronted cities in the world and has a wonderful harbour, great beaches, decent weather, etc etc.

In 22 years I never saw a hurricane, cyclone, or anything approaching a natural disaster of that kind. We had bushfires which were deemed natural disasters, but they didn't quite get into the area where I was living (I did have friends who lost houses though).

My point is: you can live near an ocean without experiencing hurricanes.

Re:The future....

[imbaczek]

Except that living there is not exactly an option now.

Re:The future....

[dameron]

B) Don't live in a city that is 8 feet below sea level. Flooding WILL occur.

This option involves not having a port city on the largest river in North America.

In other words, ain't gonna happen.

Re:The future....

[georgewilliamherbert]

Davis, California

Davis (and the whole central valley) were under water not all that long ago, geologically speaking.

Re:The future....

[paraax]

So instead of building in a place prone to natural disaster, you live in a place fairly inhospitable to life, also known as a desert. It'll be interesting to see what happens to Phoenix when the aquifer it sits on is empty.

Re:The future....

[FatRatBastard]

Move it lock, stock and barrel to a corn field in the middle of Iowa. Like anyone's really gonna care where it is as long as they can get drunk as hell.

Re:The future....

[FLEB]

Underground bunkers with trailer decoys over the top should buy 'em some time.

Re:The future....

[corngrower]

I don't think it is really necessary to completely abandon the city. But I think that before rebuilding they really really ought to consider raising the level of land by about 15 feet. That certainly would take a hell of a lot of earthmoving equipment, but It could (and probably should) be done. It would be expensive, I'm sure, but if the residents want to have that extra measure of security, it would be worth it. Being that many of the houses are flooded and will likely have to be rebuilt anyway.

What I think of now is the half of million people that won't be able to return to their homes for weeks, some won't have homes to return to, or will be living in temporary arrangements for months.

Re:The future....

[angle_slam]

Phoenix doesn't sit on an aquafier, it gets water from a series of canals that direct water from various rivers. As for being inhospitable, I agree. But the 3 million who live in Vegas and Phoenix may disagree. And there is such a thing as air conditioning.

Re:The future....

[surprise_audit]

Sounds like the Ankh-Morpork solution might be the way to go:

Ankh-Morpork is built on black loam, broadly, but mostly what it is built on is more Ankh-Morpork. Because of the nature of the Ankh-Morpork citizenry and the flooding of the River Ankh, they figured it was simply easier to build on top of the existing buildings when the sediment grew too high, rather than excavate them out.

Re:The future....

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Give it a minute.

Re:The future....

[TykeClone]

North Dakota is smart enough to have a major river that flows north.

That in and of itself isn't bad, except for when there is a lot of snow, a warming trend in the southern part of the river valley, and a frozen destination (Grand Forks)

Re:The future....

[jiminim]

What about the all of the "idiots" along the San Andreas fault? What about half of the country that could be affected by the "big one" along the New Madrid? What about the entirety of North Amercia that could be affected if Yellowstone ever erupts? This entire country has its specific areas of natural disturbance. But we get over it.

Re:The future....

[rgmoore]

But extremely vulnerable to drought.

Re:The future....

[parliboy]

I concur completely with point A, but will play "Devil's Advocate" on point B. The people there took the physical risk, but due to various bailout methods other people will share in the financial cost. If you live in a place that's known to be due for a disastrous force of nature, is it right to expect me to bail you out when it comes?

Re:The future....

[shawb]

Mountains are highly unstable, there is either techtonic activity or erosion (with the attendant landslide/avalanche) going on. Clearing those trees and logs is going to do a lot to unsettle that soil around your house...

Re:The future....

[albion_t]

Do you not have any empathy? Can you imagine bringing home less than $200 dollars a week in the city you were born in and having a car that won't make it more than a few miles without fixing it yourself? Can you imagine being told to pack everything in your POS car (if you're lucky enough to have it)and get away from the only thing you've ever known? Not everyone is fortunate enough to be born and raised in privelege. Even in your own country. I know a little about it. Born and raised in rural Arkansas.

Re:The future....

[Halfbaked Plan]

The part that disturbs me is that when they put the Governor of Louisiana on TV news, she kept saying, almost in a false-triumphalist tone 'we _will_ rebuild.'

I mean. Go ahead. With your own money. Here's free transportation out if that's what you want.

Re:The future....

[Halfbaked Plan]

"Port Cities" don't need to have all the stuff New Orleans has been famous for.

Not saying that New Orleans' culture is bad or anything of the kind. But 80% of the reason people live there isn't to support it as a utilitarian Port City.

Re:The future....

[Omnieiunium]

Errr... I have to disagree with Point A. You see, I live right on the ocean, and we will never ever get a hurricane. Why? Because there are none here. The worst we have to deal with here in Vancouver is rain. And that giant earthquake that is going to happen sooner or later.

Re:The future....

[nmb3000]

But the 3 million who live in Vegas and Phoenix may disagree. And there is such a thing as air conditioning.

Until the surrounding states decide to stop selling them power for some reason. I have a feeling it will start feeling a little more inhospitable at that point.

Re:The future....

[Guppy06]

"Don't live by a freaking ocean. Oceans have hurricanes."

Oceans carry ships. Ships carry cargo. Kinda hard to load those forty-foot containers onto a truck when there's nobody living by the ocean to unload them.

" Don't live in a city that is 8 feet below sea level. Flooding WILL occur."

There's no bedrock in New Orleans. It was built above sea level, but it sank.

Also, the fact that nobody else upriver wants flooding to occur in their backyards either means that Louisiana has to builds its levees even higher. The water from half the country has no place else to go.

Don't want to build near the river? See my response to your first bullet point.

Re:The future....

[aminorex]

Personally, I would not want to wait. Why not float it? Just inject enough water under positive pressure to keep the land surface well elevated. Designing the drainage would be key. Energy for the pumps might be had from geothermal steam, for cheap.

Re:The future....

[DroopyStonx]

Wrong.

1. Earthquakes, contrary to popular belief, aren't all that destructive. They CAN be, but most important structures (homes, freeways, skyscrapers even) are now build and are reinforced to withstand them. Big destructive ones are few and far between.

2. Volcanic.. again, eruptions are few and far between, but they only affect a small radius around them.

3. Tornadoes, frequent, but are very isolated.

Hurricanes cover MASSIVE area, almost the size of an entire state, and you are guaranteed one or two WEVERY year resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in damage, if not more.

All other "common" natural disasters pale in comparison.

Re:The future....

[Grishnakh]

We make our own power here, from both hydroelectric and nuclear sources, as well as others (including solar). We don't need anyone else's power.

Re:The future....

[Grishnakh]

Many of these canals have been around for 500-1000 years, long before A/C was invented. Phoenix the city was founded before A/C as well, and had a respectable population; there's even many historic monuments here that were built before A/C. It's quite possible to live without A/C (though it's not much fun). Evaporative cooling helps a lot, and costs very little to run.

Re:The future....

[Grishnakh]

Girls Gone Wild has done some movies in Lake Havasu City, Arizona during spring break. Losing NO won't kill it.

Re:The future....

[Grishnakh]

As you just pointed out, the Dutch aren't exposed to hurricanes.

Unlike the US, however, the Dutch don't exactly have a lot of land. We've got plenty of it in the US.

Re:The future....

[DavidTC]

Has anyone tried corpses?

Or if they're going off body heat, why not just heat up some water filled bags in roughly the right shape?

Re:The future....

[DavidTC]

That's what I think we ought to say. But we can do it in a way that no one could complain. We just say:

Here's your aid check. Feel free to rebuild however you want, wherever you want.

Water? You want to know when the water is leaving?

Well, we're not rebuilding the pumps and levies, so probably in a few hundred years when the silt is built back up, we assume. But the city's open again, if you have some sort of boat...

Yes, maybe it would be easiest if you were to relocate to another city, we hadn't thought of that. Good idea.

Hey, if you turn your deed in on your way out you won't have to pay property taxes.

Re:The future....

[DavidTC]

Aren't all scorpions 'poisonous'? Maybe not to the extent they can kill a human being, but that is how scorpions eat, by stabbing with poison.

Re:The future....

[lonesome phreak]

Living in Oklahoma, I can say you can at least usually out-run a tornado (or hide from it), and it doesn't last a whole day either...

NEway, we've got CA retiries moving here now. Having some spice from New Orleanes would be sweet.

Re:The future....

[Danga]

sounds like the train schedule around where I live...

Re:The future....

[Rudy4606]

If I lie down on the train tracks, I shouldn't be shocked if I get hit by a train...

You would if it were an electric train.

Re:The future....

[Synn]

I'm not going to blame the victims. Their lives suck right now. But I don't think any of them have the right to be surprised.

I live in Fort Lauderdale and we took Katrina as it passed through Florida. I wouldn't be surprised if a big one hit where I live and frankly I've even prepared for it.

But I don't think people up in Indiana or Ohio should be paying for people to live down here either. If you want to live in a distaster zone, the cost of living there should be all on you. But most people in these areas don't expect to get wiped out, and if they do they know they'll be covered. The population in this area is growing at an insane rate, house prices practically double every few years, and at some point there's gonna be a monster bail out bill when the next big one hits SE Florida.

Re:The future....

[StikyPad]

That would only push the next disaster off for another 100 years, when the city has once again sunk.

New Orleans isn't just below sea level, it's sinking, as in present tense.

There's already perfectly good land that's above sea level, it's just not in New Orleans. I realize that in the past 100 years or so we've always been stubborn enough to rebuild a city rather than abandon it, but this might be the time to admit that mother nature is just a little more determined and capable than we are.

While the current situation is horrible beyond what I'd wish on anyone, it should have come as a surprise to no one. I can remember learning in high school that it wasn't a question of if, but when. And that was a high school in Virginia.

Re:The future....

[Hachima]

Okinawa Japan is almost guaranteed a hurricane each year if not several. The architecture there however is very bland unlike a lot of areas in mainland Japan. It's basically a concrete forest. Every house and building is concrete and can take a massive beating. All windows are built with metal re-inforcement by default. There is still massive debree like trees to clean up after a hurricane hits but buildings are for the most part just fine. http://www.kadena.af.mil/weather/update/Typhoon_To tals.htm shows typhoons that have gone by Okinawa the last few years. Super Typhoon is the same classification for a high level 4 or level 5 hurricane. http://www.nahaken-okn.ed.jp/photograph/image_54/8 00_600/naha_city_a.jpg http://www.nahaken-okn.ed.jp/photograph/image_54/o riginal/jyousei-es_b.jpg It may look bland but they can take a major beating and recover quickly without a huge finacial loss

Re:The future....

[ben_white]

I live in OK as well and I agree.

cheers, ben

Re:The future....

[snolan]

(besides tornados suck too)

Right you are, and they (tornados) are even less predictable than hurricanes, therefore they scare me more than hurricanes.

If you look at a composite map of the world at night, you can clearly see the oceans because most cities are built right on a coast. There are many, many good reasons why that is so. Expecting people to move away from the ocean is unreasonable.

Re:The future....

[AnObfuscator]

A) Don't live by a freaking ocean. Oceans have hurricanes.

Do you have any idea what you are suggesting?

Here's an economics lesson. People live close to where they can find work. These jobs are in three primary industries: manufacturing, trade, and services. Manufacturing and trade are the foundations of an economy, with services following -- one cannot build an economy with services alone.

Now, oceans are a FUNDAMENTAL requirement for trade. We simply do not have large enough planes to carry bulk cargo efficiently between continents. Without ports, no trade. Are you REALLY suggesting that we should ABANDON all intercontinental trade?

the fact is, New Orleans occupies such an important place in the US, that it can't POSSIBLY be abandoned. the cost of rebuilding it is FAR less than the loss of not having it. It sits on the mouth of the Mississippi River, which is a massively important shipping channel -- one of the most important in the world. It also sits near huge deposits of oil and natural gas, and has a large network of refineries nearby. By abandoning New Orleans, we have to abandon literally centuries of massively expensive & vital infrastructure. It's simply not even remotely realistic.

Besides, where else should people live? Anywhere you chose to live has some sort of natural disaster: Hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, mudslides, avalanches, volcanos, floods... where are you going to go to escape all natural disasters?

BTW, Not all oceans have hurricanes. The cost of South America below Venezuela doesn't get hit, nor does the coast of west Africa. In fact, more coastline worldwide is NOT in danger of hurricanes than is in danger. So you're wrong about that, too.

Re:The future....

[Trifthen]

Dude, if I were bringing home less than $200 a week, I'd find another job. And who cares about the city I was born in? Seriously, fuck that city. I really don't understand this misplaced loyalty to some shitty area, just because someone was born there, or it was "all they ever knew." You know what? I was born in poverty myself, to a single-parent. Did I stay in the trailer parks just 'cause it was all I ever knew? Hell no!

Sometimes, it's just time to leave. I didn't even have a car, or much money. Funny what a good education and a little determination will give you. I'm not by any means rich these days, but I have a running car, own a house, enjoy where I live, and also "know a little about it."

You can accept what life has dealt you, or you can get a new hand. I chose the latter, as living in a trailer below the poverty line didn't exactly appeal to me. It's hard work, but what worthwhile isn't?

Re:The future....

[Darby]

a.) Actually, it is the east coast of the oceans the ones that have the hurricanes... That is why europe and California may see heavy rain but not hurricanes.

I guess you're forgetting a few years back when there were at least two hurricanes in the Pacific. Early on, they were rated as a potential threat to San Diego. One of them went up the Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California) and flooded Yuma, Arizona.

Sinking

[AutopsyReport]

My memory is muddy, what's this river that I'm in, New Orleans is sinking man and I don't wanna swim!

Re:Sinking

[Penguinshit]

oh yeah...

Re:Sinking

[gvc]

The Tragically Hip are correct. New Orleans is sinking, and will continue to sink.

The land is a flood plain. It depends on annual Mississippi flooding to deposit silt and moisture to maintain the land mass. The river levees cut off this replenishment and the land sinks.

The problem will only get worse, and there's no obvious solution.

Re:Sinking

[That's Unpossible!]

The problem will only get worse, and there's no obvious solution.

No, there definitely is an obvious solution. However, most former New Orleans residents won't think "don't live on a flood plain" is a good one.

Re:Sinking

[KillShill]

did anyone else read the parent's post to the tune of a song lyric?

maybe i'm just tired or maybe it's the heat.

Re:Sinking

[gvc]

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tragicallyhip/newor leansissinking.html

Re:Sinking

[KillShill]

well that's another good reason...

Re:Sinking

[Mr. Flibble]

Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good,
Now, cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good,
When the levee breaks, mama, you got to move.

Re:Sinking

[_DangerousDwarf]

Ahhh The Hip. Great band!

Too bad there is no -1 "Putting a tune in my head for the next 30 minutes" mod.

Re:Sinking

[flutkatastrophe]

The problem will only get worse, and there's no obvious solution.

Move somewhere else!
I'm tired of paying my government to rebuild your stupid houses next to the ocean and below sea level.

cities on floodplains?

[myowntrueself]

"what can be done to prevent and/or lessen such disasters in the future?"

Well what I do in Civ3 is to disallow building cities on floodplains and swamps. Helps heaps.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[_Sharp'r_]

At the very least, stop taxing everyone else to subsidize flood insurance for people who insist on building in flood-prone areas.

If they want insurance, let them pay the real cost of it. If they don't, let them take the risk themselves.

Of course, we'd probably have to transition such a system into place by instead of banning existing structures from getting the current subsidized insurance, simply telling everyone who got flooded out that if they insist on rebuilding in their flood-susceptible location, they're going to have to do it without flood insurance. Otherwise, they can turn their property over for parkland and take it's pre-flood value to go rebuild somewhere else.

I know that a lot of not as wealthy people also live in flood-prone areas, but can't the taxpayers stop paying for rebuilding millionaires beach and river-front property over and over again in the same locations?

Re:cities on floodplains?

[vrmlguy]

This was done is several areas along the Mississippi River following the floods of 1993. The government bought out a lot of flooded land and turned it into parks and such. Hopefully, something similar will be done in N'Orleans.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[olympus_coder]

Actually, that is exactly what happens (and I have been through several floods). FEMA bails you out ONCE and only ONCE.

If your house is a total loss, they generally won't allow you to rebuild there. They settle and turn your land into a park. There is a hole neighborhood across the river from my parents (my parent's house doesn't flood) that is now a park.

I have friend's who homes (in Houston) were CONDIMIED because, after essesive development around their aera, there was not enough drainage and so everytime it rain their neighborhood would flood (it didn't do this until the last 10 years). The land and homes were purchased using emminent domain, and then buldozed.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[Phronesis]

At the very least, stop taxing everyone else to subsidize flood insurance for people who insist on building in flood-prone areas.

If they want insurance, let them pay the real cost of it. If they don't, let them take the risk themselves.

Get with the times. For almost three decades the federal law has specified that houses built after 1975 pay actuarial rates for federal flood insurance, so FEMA breaks even. There is no taxpayer subsidy on these houses.

The problem for older houses is more difficult. Suppose you built your house when an area was not flood-prone, but then the Corps of Engineers built levees upstream that channeled other people's floods onto your doorstep? Now you live in a floodplain because of someone else's action. Is it your fault that someone else built levees or paved over wetlands?

In the case of New Orleans, they have mostly themselves to blame for the flood hazard---the city has been subsiding because of the levees and pumping out ground water and has been perhaps the most active supporter of building levees and channelizing the Mississippi---but people living elsewhere, such as on the Bayous, are suffering from the environmental effects of the federal government's decisions about managing the river and thus deserve some relief.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[_Sharp'r_]

Only once?

Maybe something has changed since this article was written or maybe the laws for your locale are different.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[(startx)]

Unfortunately, some people just don't learn. Chesterfield was under 15 feet of water in '93, and now there is many-billions of dollars worth of development right in the flood plain, and we'll all be paying to rebuild it again after the next 100 year flood.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[_Sharp'r_]

One of the continual options the OMB lists at budget is to stop subsidizing insurance on repeatedly flooded properties at a cost of a couple hundred million every year.

See http://www.cbo.gov/bo2003/bo2003_showhit1.cfm?inde x=450-05

You're right, they have started trying to charge more realistic estimates of insurance recently, but they still have all those grandfathered structures that they subsizide.

They also keep rebuilding destroyed structures. That's the real loss, when they let people build their newly re-insured structure in the same place the last one got washed away and get the same insurance again.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[olympus_coder]

Agreed, except, people have short memories. I will personally NEVER live in a known flood plane. My parents live above the 500 year flood plane on a bend in the Gudalupe River. That is as close as I will get.

You couldn't pay most of the people the lost their homes across the river to live within 10 miles of the river after that. Of course, there are 1000s of people lined up who would be thrilled to buy 2 acres on the river after the memory of the flood fades away from the public memory (which it has) and that is really the problem. 10K people can learn there lesson (10K homes would be a huge disaster - which points to the size of Katrina) bu t the other 250M would all gladly put them selves in the same place.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[olympus_coder]

The other thing that is probably true is that politics always comes into play. The article you link is about CA, and coastal realistate. That is some of the most prized (overprices) land on the planet. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some VERY currupt finances behind the goverments decisions to try to save it again and again.

My expereince is from a small working class town in central Texas when a Democrat was President and a ceartain Republican was still Govenor (pre-2000).

Re:cities on floodplains?

[slashdot_commentator]

No, in Civ 3, floodplains rock!

Floodplains are great for quick city growth. So what if every so often, you lose a few thousand people. You can grow beyond a size 6 city without an aqueduct. By the time aqueduct technology rolls around, you never suffer depopulation. Memphis was founded on a floodplain. Where would Egyptian civilization be without it?

Re:cities on floodplains?

[myowntrueself]

Floodplains are great to have within your city radius, sure.

What I was *actually* trying to get around was the 'too many cities' bug/feature where the game can only cope with something like 500-odd cities.

So I disabled cities on jungle, floodplain, swamp, desert and tundra.

I like playing on an enormous, custom Earth map against lots and lots of computer civs.

Also, in Ancient Egypt (IIRC from my classical studies days) cities were not actually built *on* the Nile floodplain. There were villages on the floodplain, but these were built on artificial raised mounds (which still exist and still have villages on them, though it doesn't flood any more due to the dam).

Re:cities on floodplains?

[bani]

build concrete bunkers.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[teknickle]

We are finishing rebuilding homes bought out from flooding last year in Indiana. Department of Homeland Security (FEMA) gives the OK to either 1) buyout home or 2) rebuild. Federal dollars then back it up (states also get back up to 25% of their cleanup and recovery costs from federal money).

An odd fact is that in Indiana, the Small Business Administration hold the purse strings in disaster relief.

One of the homes we are finishing right now had to get special permission to build back in the flood plain (we are building up ground and foundation so that house is elevated above anticipated flood level).

There are lots of interesting stories from those in the fields and from the survivors themselves.

We are still looking for volunteers for Katrina and other (less publicized) disasters.

If you would like to help, please register at
http://www.hcrn.info/volunteer.php
(this is the official signup page for Indiana volunteers as outlined by press release 8-29-2005 by Gov Mitch Daniels of Indiana and posted on invoad website)

If you need assistance, you can also register at www.hcrn.info

Re:cities on floodplains?

[Guppy06]

"If they want insurance, let them pay the real cost of it. If they don't, let them take the risk themselves."

You're assuming that people have the option of moving elsewhere.

Louisiana ain't exactly the richest state in the Union and New Orleans is among the worst of it (as the bumper sticker says, "New Orleans--third world and proud of it!"). A lot of the families living there have been living there since they were emancipated, and were the unfortunate ones that couldn't afford to move north or west during the Nineteenth or Twentieth Centuries. They don't live in houses, they live in shacks (or, in the city, "blighted housing") for which moving into a trailer would be an improvement. They sure as heck wouldn't see any money from selling their homes in an effort to move inland (even less if we follow through with your motion to eliminate subsidized flood insurance), and if they could afford to move out, they would have done so in the past hundred years or so.

And even away from New Orleans, the parts of rural Louisiana ravaged by the storm are those parts where the primary language isn't English; Cajun and Creole country. And, again, these people don't exactly have luxury houses on prime real estate. They never had any money because there's been a history of language-based discrimination longer than and almost as violent as Louisiana's history of race discrimination. And while there's been a bit of reconcilliation in recent decades, there's still a whole mess of Indians and Pakistanis that speak better English than they do.

Their job options consist of shrimping, welding, or getting shot in Iraq (ever wonder why the Deep South has such large military and National Guard enlistment rates?). They couldn't afford to move even before their shack was knocked down by a tropical cyclone. The government's options are either to help them rebuild their "houses," or allow them to wander homeless, possibly scraping together enough money for bus fare so they can wander the streets of your town, since they have little else keeping them in Louisiana.

Or I suppose we could also throw them all in jail...

Telling them to simply move somewhere else is like saying "Let them eat cake." Yes, there are fools who have second homes on Grand Isle, but Grand Isle is not indicitive of that part of the state.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[Dasher42]

Condimied? Rhymes with formaldehyde? With jimmied? Are you a perl programmer, perchance?

Re:cities on floodplains?

[mrchaotica]

Is that the only error you noticed? That's nothing! There was also:

• "a hole neighborhood" ("whole")
• "I have friend's" ("friends" -- not posessive!)
• "who homes" ("whose homes")
• "essesive" ("excessive")
• "aera" ("area")
• "and so" (poor grammar -- use a comma instead)
• "everytime" (should be two words)
• "it rain" (it rained)
• "emminent" ("eminent")
• "buldozed" ("bulldozed")

I usually try not to criticize; however, this time I couldn't resist because that poster was downright incoherent! I only hope he reads this, so that he might realize this and make an effort to learn some grammar and spelling.

Ironically, he got some of the most common errors (e.g. "they're" vs. "there" vs. "their") right!

Re:cities on floodplains?

[Patik]

a hole neighborhood
I have friend's who homes were...
CONDIMIED
essesive
aera

Either the flooding has reached the level of your keyboard or you should learn to proofread.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[NeMon'ess]

One mistake is understandable, but this many is stupid and distracting... Even for those who don't care quite enough to comment. If you typed on a computer with a spell checker, just use it. Please.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[jez9999]

Hum. So you're telling me it was too expensive just to move upstream en masse, or something? Is it expensive to live in Baton Rouge?

Disclaimer: I really don't know.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[moonbender]

Telling them to simply move somewhere else is like saying "Let them eat cake."

Wow, that's got to be the first time I've seen that particular reference on Slashdot. Very nice.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[spectasaurus]

You know, it amazes me that the US is so keen to help out the rest of the world from tyranny and terrorism, yet can't even look after its own people. The houses these people live in are embarrassing for such an industrialized country.

As well, I find it funny that the Governor of Louisiana (or Mississippi, I don't remember) only asked for prayers at this time. Seems to me that food, drinking water and blankets would be more sensible.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[pla]

Louisiana ain't exactly the richest state in the Union and New Orleans is among the worst of it

And you consider that a reason TO STAY???

This may not apply in "real" third-world countries, but in the US, any schmuck that can sign their name can get a job at WallyWorld or McDonalds.


I have chosen to live in a place that doesn't get floods, deadly droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, tidal waves, volcanos, earthquakes, plagues of locusts, or anything of the sort. I therefore have VERY little sympathy (in fact, you could call it "outright annoyance that my tax dollars need to bail their asses out over and over and over") for people who live in places that do have such problems chronically.

Don't build on fault lines. Don't build in swamps. Don't build below sea-level. Don't build on the slopes of a volcano. Don't build at the lowest poing in the general area. Don't completely deforest the surrounding area. These don't take a rocket scientist to figure out. And if you do, don't expect to see me chopping a hole in your roof to save your worthless life after you ignore an evacuation order.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[Guppy06]

" People settle and have children where they wish - it's a free country."

No, they can't. The country may be free, but real estate sure as heck isn't.

"Just stop encouraging people to build irresponsibly. I guess if there are fewer places to build, there are fewer people in that unsafe area!"

This is not a solution for people who already live there. Louisiana (especially that part of the state) is a place where people move out of, not in to (a big issue in state politics). Those that are there now tend to have been there for generations.

"I'm SURE that even if the state stayed underwater PERMANENTLY, fishing and shrimping would continue."

Sure, there's a demand for fish and shrimp; cheap fish and shrimp. Pressure from global competitors ensures that many of the people working in that industry are paying to live in a first world country on third world wages.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[Guppy06]

"And you consider that a reason TO STAY???"

No, it's a reason for why they can't leave. Over the past decade or so Louisiana (especially the New Orleans area) has been a place where people have moved away from, not into. With the steadily decreasing population, it's safe to assume that many of those left behind aren't there because they want to be.

" but in the US, any schmuck that can sign their name can get a job at WallyWorld or McDonalds."

Will working minimum wage make you enough money to buy or rent someplace out-of-state, especially when it can be assumed you will be getting little or no money from the sale of your existing property? Are those minimum wage jobs going to allow you to take time off to go out-of-state to scout out the housing/job/etc. situation in your intended destination?

McDonald's and Wal-Mart sure as Hell don't pay for relocation.

"I have chosen to live in a place that doesn't get floods, deadly droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, tidal waves, volcanos, earthquakes, plagues of locusts, or anything of the sort."

No such place on the planet.

" I therefore have VERY little sympathy (in fact, you could call it "outright annoyance that my tax dollars need to bail their asses out over and over and over") for people who live in places that do have such problems chronically."

Then don't complain when they choose to live in a cardboard box on your street corner. If they can't rebuild what they call their house, there's no reason for them to linger anywhere, and the way you paint your home town may make it worth the bus ticket.

"Don't build on fault lines. Don't build in swamps. Don't build below sea-level. Don't build on the slopes of a volcano. Don't build at the lowest poing in the general area."

Where is this fantasy land where we should build, in your opinion?

Re:cities on floodplains?

[ivan256]

Don't build on fault lines. Don't build in swamps. Don't build below sea-level. Don't build on the slopes of a volcano. Don't build at the lowest poing in the general area. Don't completely deforest the surrounding area.

This isn't so obvious to everybody. Many people wouldn't know how to figure out if they were about to move into a flood plane. You can be damned sure it won't be in the real estate ad. Knowing people who decided to move into a house in New Orleans this past Saturday (yes, they physically moved their stuff into a house there when the rest of the city was evacuating, figuring that once the storm blew by everything would be fine) really underscores how uninformed many people are.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[Kuscheltier]

In Alpha Centauri you could build pressure domes to protect your cities from submerging.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[Cro Magnon]

I have chosen to live in a place that doesn't get floods, deadly droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, tidal waves, volcanos, earthquakes, plagues of locusts, or anything of the sort

Good for you, but not eveyone can afford a rocket to the moon.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[WinterSolstice]

What they really need are towels. Lots and lots of towels :)

Though in all seriousness, I love New Orleans, and it is probably worth pumping the water out. It's one of the few truly interesting US cities.

-WS

Re:cities on floodplains?

[olympus_coder]

Actually, yes I am a perl programmer... probably because I can't spell.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[shekel]

Sometimes I guess there just isn't room if the city is well established. Take Cairo Egypt. Millions live there and they are now starting to build in the old Nile flood plain. Not a concern since they have the Aswan dam -- or it is? Are they just asking for trouble down the road? Will it be from a huricane? No. Could some bad guys do something to the dam? Possible. But if you've been there, you'd see that there really is no other place to build.

Ah hell, lets just all move to the mountains before global warming washes us away next! ;)

Re:cities on floodplains?

[pla]

Where is this fantasy land where we should build, in your opinion?

90% of the planet! For some reason, humans just prefer living in fairly dangerous places. In the US, we could avoid virtually all the hurricanes we hear about simply by avoiding the two or three hundred miles nearest the coast from Louisiana through Virgina; almost all the earthquakes and the worst of the droughts by not living in the desert; all the volcanos by not living on the slopes of one; Tornados shouldn't actually cause damage if people living in tornado-prone areas built appropriate housing; Tsunamis only cause serious damage right on the coast itself.


Are those minimum wage jobs going to allow you to take time off to go out-of-state to scout out the housing/job/etc. situation in your intended destination?

Currently, the businesses in the region hit by Katrina can't open for purely practical reasons. Most people have no homes intact to which they can return. You yourself called the area very economically depressed. So I would repeat myself, why stay??? "too poor to move" doesn't mean much when staying doesn't have anything more to offer beyond the possibility that the same thing might happen again next year, and the promise that it will happen again eventually. And one slum seems as good as another...


If they can't rebuild what they call their house, there's no reason for them to linger anywhere

Why encourage them to linger in the same place nature gave them a smack-down in the first place??? "It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one..."

What can I say if you don't "get" that the humor in that sketch doesn't come from the fourth one staying up?

Re:cities on floodplains?

[Ihlosi]

90% of the planet!

Oh, now I get it ! You're from Mars. That explains a lot.

You see, 2/3s of the planet Earth are covered by water in the first place. Then there's lots and lots of desert, land above the arctic/below the antarctic circles, coasts, islands, and the like.

Name the place, and I'll tell you what kind of natural disaster is likely to strike there.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[gte910h]

nowing people who decided to move into a house in New Orleans this past Saturday
Wow, this meathead really exists?

Re:cities on floodplains?

[pla]

You see, 2/3s of the planet Earth are covered by water in the first place.

Hah hah. 90% of the land. Hey, ya got me. 10 for technical accuracy but a 1 for style.


Name the place, and I'll tell you what kind of natural disaster is likely to strike there.

Okay - Northeastern US, not right on the coast, and not at a local low point.

We get two hurricanes a century that manage to blow down a few power lines and damage older roofs. We get a weak tornado once or so per year. We get "flash floods", but here that means your car gets stuck in the mud, not washed out to sea.

As the only real "disaster" condition we get, sometimes it snows too much... But only every decade or two do we get anything bad enough to call a disaster, and even then it just counts as something of an annoyance, not a "real" disaster - Oh no, I might need to read for a week rather than watch the flickering opiate, while waiting for the plows (which we already have around and pay for ourselves, for just such events) to make the roads passable for the electric company repair crews.


In any case, don't conflate "possibility" with "likelyhood"... Yes, most places will eventually suffer some form of natural disaster - New England actually had two hurricanes last century that caused significant damage (but only right on the coast). Compare that to getting two per year! The first you call a freak storm, the second you call a stupid place to build a castle.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[swelke]

What you've neglected to think of is that the wealthy are in charge of the government (no matter which party is in control on a given year). What they apparently want out of that government is, among other things, to get their house back for free when they build it where it'll fall into the ocean/get submerged/get swept away by flood waters.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[swelke]

It was also done in Grand Forks North Dakota (where I am currently posting from) after the big 1997 flood (which actually made national news for a day, if you remember). Large areas of what used to be city, down by the river, are now parks. They made a pretty good frisbee-golf park out of one segment of it.

It took about 5 years before they had all of the old structures torn down and rebuilt the area in its new form, and that was only a couple of dozen square-blocks. Imagine how long it would take in New Orleans.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[swelke]

You might note that the grandparent was griping about the _millionaires'_ homes, not the poor little dwellings. Your rant is relevant to the discussion (and in my experience largely true), but not really to the comment you replied to.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[ivan256]

Sadly, yes. It's hard to feel sorry for somebody like that.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[Guppy06]

"90% of the planet!"

Then you should have no problem giving an example.

"In the US, we could avoid virtually all the hurricanes we hear about simply by avoiding the two or three hundred miles nearest the coast from Louisiana through Virgina;"

Yeah, that worked real well for the folks in Jackson, Mississippi, two hundred or so miles from the Gulf of Mexico. Heck, even Tennessee had problems with Katrina. I could mention Kentucky, but there are probably too many rivers for you. Ohio? Great Lake. West of the Mississippi River? There's still the Missouri and Colorado to worry about.

"Almost all the earthquakes and the worst of the droughts by not living in the desert;"

So you redefine someplace as a desert simply because it's getting less rainfall than usual? So all those crappy-ass tomatoes we were stuck with eating around this time last year were actually grown in the desert?

"Tornados shouldn't actually cause damage if people living in tornado-prone areas built appropriate housing;"

You're either overestimating ferrocrete structures or underestimating the power of tornados.

"Tsunamis only cause serious damage right on the coast itself."

You're assuming that tsunamis only hit mountainous areas, where the land gets real high real fast once you find it. Unless they're hitting Indonesia, Japan or Chile, tsunamis do have the potential to go well inland.

"So I would repeat myself, why stay??? "too poor to move" doesn't mean much when staying doesn't have anything more to offer beyond the possibility that the same thing might happen again next year, and the promise that it will happen again eventually."

OK, it's not sinking in. "Too poor to move" isn't a figure of speech. I literally mean that people do not have the amount of available cash for a rental truck and a first month's deposit/down payment/whatever. It does not mean "need to get a better job," if they could do that they'd have gotten one by now (and in the specific example of Louisiana, probably have already left). It does not mean "needs to save up more," they do not have disposable income to save (they're likely not even breaking even). It means "They do not have money," and it's not the sort of thing that will be fixed next paycheck. Even assuming "one slum is just as good as another," there's still costs associated with moving to a different slum (truck, deposit, etc.).

Get your head out of your bourgeois ass, nobody is living in poverty because they like it. The only way they'd move is if they get kicked down from "working poor" to "sleeping on a park bench," and even then the only way they'd be able to leave town is if local law enforcement was "kind" enough to get them a one-way bus ticket to "anywhere but here." If you play your cards right you might be able to move up to "migrant worker," who aren't exactly known for their home ownership.

"Why encourage them to linger in the same place nature gave them a smack-down in the first place??? "

Because their only other option is your backyard, and I don't see you offering it.

"What can I say if you don't "get" that the humor in that sketch doesn't come from the fourth one staying up?"

They can't afford four castles. They can barely afford to rent a few hundred(!) square feet on real estate that had to be practically given away.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[Guppy06]

"Oh no, I might need to read for a week rather than watch the flickering opiate, while waiting for the plows (which we already have around and pay for ourselves, for just such events) to make the roads passable for the electric company repair crews."

If you can't get into work, you don't get paid. No paycheck, no heating oil, no electricity, no food. Oh, it may not be true for you, but it's true of most of the people you want to move out of New Orleans. They may be able to take a day or two and simply tighten their belts (i. e. what they already do when a tropical storm comes into town and shuts the town down for a day or two), but a week straight can be devastating, assuming their job would still be there for you after that week.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[pla]

but a week straight can be devastating,

Wait, when did you start arguing my side of this discussion?

Okay... I'll accept everything you wrote there. But does it make more sense to experience a "devastating" hardship once per generation, or twice per year?


Look, I don't mean to sound completely cold to these people's plight - They honestly do have my sympathy, right at the moment. But I KNOW that 99.9% will, rather than packing their few remaining material posessions and moving to, say, Nebraska, try to rebuild their lives in the exact same place, just like they did last time, and the time before, and the generation before, and the century before.

There comes a time for any sane person where you have to say "enough!", and pay attention to the great big neon sign Mother Nature keeps flashing, saying "no vacancy!".

Re:cities on floodplains?

[oni]

> You know, it amazes me that the US is so keen to help out the rest of the world from tyranny and terrorism, yet can't even look after its own people.

Well, I don't know where you're from, but I grew up and live in the Southern US (close enough that I got tropical storm winds from Katrina). I also have some perspective on the world because I served in the Army and had the opportunity to travel to a dozen countries.

It is my opinion, based on actual real-world experience, based on things that I've seen with my own two eyes, that we do not have poor people in the US. What we call "poor" here are people with two TVs. There are fat people that we call "poor" in the US. I'm sorry, but that's not really poor.

I've seen poor people. I've seen people starving. Hell, I saw poor people in South Korea (a modern, industrial nation) who I'm sure would volunteer to go live in New Orleans right now, even though it's a disaster area because it's better than the shit they live in.

So yes, the US does try to help other countries. I don't think it's embarassing that we've managed to lift our own lower classes to the point that they all have TVs and cars and so many of them are actually fat. I think it is a testiment to the fact that our social programs have done all they can do and that now it's time to work on behaviors.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[vrmlguy]

Quite true, but until then we'll have some great (and not so great) places to eat:
http://stlplaces.com/stleats/chesterfield_valley/
;-)

one word:

[Tumbleweed]

SPONGES.

Really, just a massive airdrop of sponges over the city, et voila, your problem, she is solved!

Re:one word:

[NeuroManson]

Or just one gigantic genetically engineered Spongebob Squarepants.

I for one welcome our eventual goofy gargantuan yellow overlords.

Re:one word:

[TracerRX]

Even better yet - Finally a use for all of those Free AOL CD's - we can fill the bowl with these to bring the grade up to sea level!

Re:one word:

[MisaDaBinksX4evah]

Really, just a massive airdrop of sponges over the city, et voila, your problem, she is solved!

One word: 'disgusting'

Re:one word:

[rwade]

Since sponges accept less water than their actual volume, you'd end up with more sponges than water.

Re:one word:

[JasonBee]

Would this mean then that New Orleans is Spongeworthy?

And without any interviews to let it justify this!

Lucky city.

Re:one word:

[tor528]

Aren't sponges made from some creature in the Ocean? Well, take the sponges out of the Ocean and put them in New Orleans, and maybe the Ocean water level will drop enough for this to work...

Re:one word:

[Kadmos]

Didn't MYTHBUSTERS float something not so long ago using only ping pong balls? Perhaps they could do the same with New Orleans?

Of course this may cause a short/long term shortage of ping pong balls (which might be a problem for China in 2006) but IMHO it's a small price to pay. I myself have three, maybe four to donate.

Re:one word:

[Thu25245]

What about those gels that absorb many hundreds of times their weight in water? Dump 'em in, truck them out, dry them, repeat?

Re:one word:

[glockNine]

Sponges?

No, seriously, what New Orleans really needs is a couple of rolls of Burly (TM) paper towels. Burly to the rescue!!

Re:one word:

[CmdrGravy]

"Aren't sponges made from some creature in the Ocean?"

Something called a . . . sponge ?

Re:one word:

[crawling_chaos]

Why is trucking out a gel (which will weigh more than the water that's already there) superior to just pumping it back into the lake or into the river after the levees are patched? The first step must be to prevent new water from getting in, then you can worry about getting the old water out.

Re:one word:

[justins]

SPONGES.

Really, just a massive airdrop of sponges over the city, et voila, your problem, she is solved!

Awhile back I hypothesized a similar solution to the problem of peace in the middle east, and specifically the fighting over contested areas such as Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Except my solution involved pork rinds.

Re:one word:

[Tumbleweed]

My solution to the problem of peace in the middle east is to nuke the entire area until it glows in the dark, then whoever wants it can HAVE it.

"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing."

Re:one word:

[Thu25245]

I'm just speculating, (like almost everyone else here) but anyway...obviously the dikes have to be patched before any drying-out action takes place.

Afterward, though, there's a heck of a lot of water to be moved out, and the existing pumps aren't up to the task. More pumps will need to be brought in, but there are only so many mobile pumps in the world. Besides, they need long hoses to carry that water out over the levees.

An absorbent material could be used anywhere, and then placed into any container (doesn't have to be watertight, so a pickup or dump truck could work) and driven out. No, it wouldn't solve all New Orleans' problems, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the stuff was used in some capacity. Again, I'm just speculating.

Re:one word:

[crawling_chaos]

The main highway out of New Orleans is washed away. Where are these trucks going to travel to dump the stuff? The Corps believes that they can pump it out in four to six weeks after the holes are patched. I would doubt that a fleet of trucks hauling gel could do it any faster, and they would use far more gasoline as each truck has to haul its own weight in addition to the weight of the water + gel agent on every trip in and out. The pumps are far more efficient.

I LIVE in New Orleans

[Anonymous Coward]

I Live in New Orleans and I was just planning on staying at Taco's house. This membership is good for something, right?

Re:I LIVE in New Orleans

[mfh]

I Live in New Orleans and I was just planning on staying at Taco's house. This membership is good for something, right?

You can stay there, but you can NEVER LEAVE. (like Slashdot)

Re:I LIVE in New Orleans

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Speaking of living in New Orleans, there are millions of people who do. A lot of posts here suggest abandoning NO. While that's a great long-term solution, what do you do now? Many of my friends live and go to school in NO. Even if they get back to their homes, and somehow they're undamaged, they may not have a school to go back to.

New Orleans will - must - be rebuilt, immediately, to as close a shadow of its former self as possible, so that life can continue. Condemning half the city by, say, 2015 is a great start. But condemning it now is to make life impossible for NO residents.

Oh, and don't forget that tourism is NO's - nay, Louisiana's - major industry. People have to get used to the new Mardi Gras location before traffic picks up there, if you abandon NO.

Re:I LIVE in New Orleans

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, with some strategic placement of ellipsis and exclamation signs around each of your NOs we have a far more interesting post:

Speaking of living in New Orleans, there are millions of people who do. A lot of posts here suggest abandoning... NO! While that's a great long-term solution, what do you do now? Many of my friends live and go to school in... NO! Even if they get back to their homes, and somehow they're undamaged, they may not have a school to go back to.

New Orleans will - must - be rebuilt, immediately, to as close a shadow of its former self as possible, so that life can continue. Condemning half the city by, say, 2015 is a great start. But condemning it now is to make life impossible for... NO residents!

Oh, and don't forget that tourism is... NO! - nay, Louisiana's - major industry. People have to get used to the new Mardi Gras location before traffic picks up there, if you abandon... NO!

There... NO!

Re:I LIVE in New Orleans

[ZosX]

Oh fucking well. People need to move on. If the changing climate is any indication we should expect more hurricanes. What's gonna happen when NO gets a major hurricane next year? The year after? When does it fucking end and when do we keep wasting our federal taxes on rebuilding something just to be destroyed again? So the tourism is a boon to the economy? So fucking what? Maybe they need some new industry that pays the damned taxes. What would have happened if a nuclear bomb went off? The land surely wouldn't be inhabitable then and they really shouldn't view it as reinhabitable now. Earthquakes can be mitigated (for the most part), so can a great deal of other natural disasters. A hurricane is pretty all encompassing. Same thing goes for florida. There are still many, many houses there that are not recovered from last year, with no real roofing, etc. What's to happen when the next Katrina rolls through Florida? How many times do you keep rebuilding before you say enough is enough? I say make it all into a natural habitat. Let the evergreens and the gulf coastline become a huge national refuge. Christ knows that very few national parklands exist in the east and this would be a great place to start one.

All those coastal towns that were wiped out, do you think that they will all be rebuilt? What would be the fucking point? So they can all be destroyed again? It is not like the problem is going to suddenly disappear. Give up on New Orleans. It is going to cost far more money to rebuild it than it would to relocate all of those people.

Re:I LIVE in New Orleans

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Hehe.

What's even funnier is the roadsign leading to the airport:

"NO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - THIS EXIT"

No kidding.

Re:I LIVE in New Orleans

[Muhammar]

Maybe they can rename the city to New Venice - to prevent bad puns about the airport exits.

Re:I LIVE in New Orleans

[mrchaotica]

Yeah, rebuilding it is a great idea! Just do it somewhere else, preferably somewhere above sea level. Maybe you could make it a suburb of Baton Rouge! Wouldn't that be nice?

Re:I LIVE in New Orleans

[mrchaotica]

So, I guess this is a bad time to remind you that Anonymous Cowards don't have Slashdot memberships, then?

Re:I LIVE in New Orleans

[Alioth]

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt - the dangerous radioactivity doesn't actually last that long.

Re:I LIVE in New Orleans

[Ihlosi]

Radioactivity that can give people acute radiation burns doesn't last that long.

Radioactivity at levels that significantly increases cancer risk tends to stick around for a while.

Re:I LIVE in New Orleans

[Fastball]

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt - the dangerous radioactivity doesn't actually last that long.
Little Boy and Fat Man were one time events. Hurricane season lasts from June-November every year.

Re:I LIVE in New Orleans

[-brazil-]

Not THAT long either... when it's caused by a single, small nuclear device containing about 60kg of uranium, only about 0.7kg of wich actually underwent fission.

Re:I LIVE in New Orleans

[Red Flayer]

I'm not going to touch most of your points, since they are addressed elsewhere in the thread.

"If the changing climate is any indication we should expect more hurricanes"

Yes, global warming / climate change does play a factor here. But the AMDO (Atlantic Multi-Decade Oscillation) plays a larger part in hurricane intensity. There's a 60-70 year cycle for storm strength, that can be tied to surface and deep temperature variations in the North Atlantic. Current models predict that we are nearing the end of the upswing in storm strength and frequency, and can expect a slowdown to begin in the coming decade.

In the long run, does this information make a difference in rebuilding or relocating New Orleans? I hope not, I am a big fan of planning for the long term.

Go ahead, allow people to rebuild on the Gulf Coast, we need them there to exploit the resources in the area. But force them to build intelligently, and subsidize if need be.

Re:I LIVE in New Orleans

[Dread_ed]

"How many times do you keep rebuilding before you say enough is enough?

Lets start with ONCE in the case of New Orleans.

Re:I LIVE in New Orleans

[dswensen]

Let's also condemn and abandon Los Angeles, because one day a major earthquake is going to wipe that out, too.

In fact, abandon the entire western U.S. One of these days Yellowstone is going to blow.

Actually, we better just abandon Earth; one day the sun will be a burnt-out husk.

Donate

[Omega1045]

Salvation Army Online Donation - Money goes directly to help with Katrina relief.

Re:Donate

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

You don't have to pay. Donations aren't required. You can donate if you want to help others. If your heart is dark and cold and without love for your fellow man who has lost everything he has built up for his entire life, you don't have to donate. I'll donate twice, once for me and once for you.

Re:Donate

[cmcguffin]

While giving to money to help ease the Katrina-related suffering is eminently laudible, please do not do so through the Salvation Army.

The Salvation Army is an rather strident anti-gay evangelical Christian organization. For example, they lobbied the Bush administration to add anti-gay provisions into the faith-based initiative legislation.

Please give by some alternate means, such as the Red Cross.

Re:Donate

[Duncan3]

Sorry dude, but the whole bill for this is coming out of my taxes, and will of course be charged to the national debt for me to pay off later.

Every US middle-class taxpayer will be chipping in about $10 per 1 billion in damages for people too stupid to live above sea level. Yes, I said stupid.

Re:Donate

[aminorex]

Is it anti-gay to allow religions to employ co-religionists? I don't think so. You're free to start a Church of Species Suicide that prohibits heterosexuality, and apply for federal contracts to provide relief services, as long as you don't discriminate against heterosexual recipients of those services.

The Red Cross is a money pit with a recent big embezelment scandal. The SA is putting 100% of donations into relief, with external audits to prove it.

Re:Donate

[aminorex]

Personally, I'm eager to donate to alleviate suffering and injustice, but New Orleans? You're kidding, right? They're Americans. They've got SUVs and lake homes and insurance and FEMA grants. Sorry, but I'm going to put my money into the Sahel or South Asia where it will save lives from malnutrition, alleviate malaria and dengue, etc., not subsidize Joe McDougal's Harvard education.

Re:Donate

[strider44]

As an Australian I'm pretty sure that the bill doesn't come out of my taxes...

Re:Donate

[Vintermann]

Red Cross has issues too, like the Guantanamo deal. That said, now isn't the time to worry about such things.

Re:Donate

[Tiroth]

I think you have that turned on it's head a bit; it isn't that they shouldn't be _allowed_ to employ those who share their religion, which is a right that they have always held. The GP is likely referring to the fact that the Salvation Army lobbied to be exempted from the equal protection laws that protect all of us from discrimination in the workplace.

Personally, I agree that this is a bad road to go down. I was very upset that a charity would go out of its way to try to write discrimination into our laws -- that is hardly the Christian thing to do.

Re:Donate

[Omega1045]

I did not know that about the Salvation Army. Well, at least I know this money will be used for good purposes, but I need to find another charity. I hate the Red Cross with serious passion. There was a flood near where I grew up, and friends and family were in it. These people had their homes, all their belongings destroyed. And unlike NO, this was a flash flood. They had no time to make a decision to stay or go.

So here are these people, sitting around in their underwear (flood hit at night) with no money. The Red Cross shows up and has the balls to charge for supplies. They were really shiaty about the whole deal. A lot of people suffered longer because of the Red Cross.

When I travel back to that area of the country, I still see an anti-red cross bumper sticker every once in a while (usually on an old car, old sticker since this flood occured a while ago).

Having heard the horror stories about Red Cross, I will never, ever give those filthy jerks a cent of my money. When a tragedy hits, I seek out other charities to donate to instead. A coworker told me that the Salvation Army does a good job with disaster relief, so I donated to them. Since I am very pro-gay rights, it looks like I will have to find someone else.

Re:Donate

[MenTaLguY]

Since the SA is apparently putting 100% of the donations toward relief efforts, and not keeping any for themselves, does it matter?

Re:Donate

[Omega1045]

Uh, no. That was kinda my point.

Re:Donate

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Have you even seen the coverage? All the fricking shacks that are just ruined? All the places that were washed away? What about that poor man who's wife said "You have to let go, take care of the children" and was washed away by the flood waters? They're not going to Harvard, they lost EVERYTHING they had. The people who stayed behind mostly did it because the only thing they had other than their lives was the home that they worked hard for and saved up for most of their lives to have.

One suggestion

[Toasty16]

The Army Corps of Engineers is working on better flood detection and protection, and anyone with expertise in this area could contact them and lend a hand.

Re:One suggestion

[robertjw]

No doubt, I think the flood detection was adequate in this case. Everyone was given several days to evacuate.

Re:One suggestion

[robertjw]

Don't know about you, but my parent's basement isn't flooded.

Re:One suggestion

[justins]

The Army Corps of Engineers [wikipedia.org] is working on better flood detection and protection [army.mil], and anyone with expertise in this area could contact them [army.mil] and lend a hand.

Yeah, that's a great idea. They don't have anything better to do right now, just give them a call!

Re:One suggestion

[kent_eh]

Ummm...

Wasn't the Army Corps of Engineers' messing around with the Mississippi's natural course a contributing factor to the mess that New Orleans is in now?

Re:One suggestion

[ErikZ]

It's the end of a river. Isn't the "Natural course" constantly changing and moving?

You've got to mess around with that or you can't have a city there.

airmchair quarterbacking

[larry bagina]

What can be done about draining and rebuilding New Orleans in light of the massive flooding, and what can be done to prevent and/or lessen such disasters in the future?"

there are professional who do that sort of thing. And they don't hang around posting on slashdot.

My .02

[tekiegreg]

Well New Orleans is too big too just simply give it up and move on. I figure they'll have to just start pumping out water one problem neighborhood at a time. It might take months or years to fully recover but it has to be done. The cost of leaving all that alone is far worse.

Long term: I think a massive public works project will come out of this. Something along the lines of the Netherlands Delta Works Project. Only on a much more massive scale. Something along the lines of a massively huge dike between New Orleans and the ocean. Either that or find a way to drop enough dirt under New Orleans to raise it about 100 feet. Either that or maybe the United States will actually address and attempt to fix global warming with this hurricane blow?

Re:My .02

[coopaq]

a massively huge dike between New Orleans and the ocean.

In Louisiana on the beach is where Rosie... oh nevermind.

Re:My .02

[DerekLyons]

Long term: I think a massive public works project will come out of this. Something along the lines of the Netherlands Delta Works Project. Only on a much more massive scale.

There has been such a massive public works program going on for over a century. The Mississippi is constrained by a massive system of levees, dams, flood control channels, etc... etc... The Netherlands Delta Works Project is little more than a scale model of this system. (In total volume, the levees along the Mississippi river and it's tributaries considerably exceed that of the Great Wall.)

Something along the lines of a massively huge dike between New Orleans and the ocean.

Such a dike would be a waste of time and money - as the main threat to New Orleans is the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain. (It's breaks in the levee that protect the city from the latter that are currently flooding the city.)

Re:My .02

[BenFranske]

Scientists will tell you that the leevees caused the problem in the first place. The Mississippi is supposed to flood naturally which builds up the marshes that protect the city from the ocean. Settlers have been building leevees to stop the flooding for hundreds of years, this is just what happens when you do that. It's the cost of doing business when you mess with nature.

Re:My .02

[Colonel Panic]

Long term: I think a massive public works project will come out of this. Something along the lines of the Netherlands Delta Works Project.

Except the Netherlands doesn't get hurricanes.

Seriously, New Orleans is built between a lake, a River (and a big one at that) and a swamp. Oh, and it's sinking. Oh, and the current dike system has in fact contributed to greater damage becuase it used to be that when the Mississippi flooded every year it brought more soil in to build up the delta - the delta has been disappearing because of the flood controls. Oh and ocean levels are rising.

They should really consider making a New New Orleans somewhere further inland.

Re:My .02

[thule]

Either that or maybe the United States will actually address and attempt to fix global warming with this hurricane blow?

Some around her mentioned that global warming would have helped prevent the hurricane in this location by getting cooler waters from the arctic to the equator. Hurricanes run on warm water, so lots of ice melting would have helped cool the waters.

Re:My .02

[Jack9]

Well New Orleans is too big too just simply give it up and move on

As a matter of fact it wasn't too big to be moved. It cost some lives, but it has been destroyed. Time to declare it hazardous and move on.

Re:My .02

[Ironsides]

Either that or maybe the United States will actually address and attempt to fix global warming with this hurricane blow?

Lets see what Meteorologist William Gray the guy who predicts the hurrican season has to say.

With last year's hurricane season so active, and this year's looking like it will be, won't people say it's evidence of global warming? G: The Atlantic has had more of these storms in the least 10 years or so, but in other ocean basins, activity is slightly down. Why would that be so if this is climate change? The Atlantic is a special basin? The number of major storms in the Atlantic also went way down from the middle 1960s to the middle '90s, when greenhouse gases were going up.

He's skeptical on mans cause of global warming and the effect on hurricanes.

Re:My .02

[oddaddresstrap]

John McPhee wrote about this project and other attempts to control natural disasters in The Control of Nature.

Re:My .02

[Konowl]

Something along the lines of a massively huge dike between New Orleans and the ocean.

The question on everyone's mind is... will Rosie O'Donnell FIT?

Re:My .02

[insideprocessors]

Actually, this may be nature trying to correct the problems we introduce: We burn gasoline in cars that release greenhouse gases. Those gases lead to global warming. Global warming causes an increased number in and severity of hurricanes. The hurricanes cause damage to ports and oil drilling platforms....decreasing the amount of oil/gasoline we can burn...thereby decreasing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Its all part of the feedback system.

Re:My .02

[thesandtiger]

Something along the lines of a massively huge dike between New Orleans and the ocean.

Is Rosie O'Donnell still looking for work?

Re:My .02

[Vintermann]

Whether there are more hurricanes, and whether those hurricanes are worse than before are two separate questions. AFAIK, there is general agreement that GW doesn't affect the first, but may affect the latter.

Re:My .02

[Guysmiley777]

And they'll fund that massive project with special assessments on the properties in NO right?

My vote for rebuilding is a 500kt nuke followed by a lot of fill. Oh, and some gas masks or something for Florida (you know, cause of the fallout)

Prevent?

[JanneM]

Only way to really prevent something like this is to not build densely in high-risk areas in the first place.

Of course, the very features that makes for high risk - river deltas, earthquake areas, active volcanism - tend to produce really desireable areas to live in.

Re:Prevent?

[moonbender]

Okay, river deltas I get. But why are earthquake areas usually desirable areas to live in? Because of the thrill? And active volcanism? Since when has that been typical for a desirable, densely populate area? There are very few cities in the vicinity of active volcanoes.

Re:Prevent?

[JanneM]

Eartquake-prone areas tend to build mountain ridges and channels which creates coastlines and contributes both to active river systems, nice, livable islands and natural harbours.

Volcanos spew out large amounts of volcanic ash and lava, which quickly becomes excellent soil to grow stuff in.

Re:Prevent?

[Rhys]

Volcanism: Rich, fertile soil.

It and earthquakes go hand in hand (duh). Plus a lot of land features people like, say nice geology, (mountains, etc) tend to involve stress and strain in the crust which also means earthquakes.

Re:Prevent?

[swelke]

Active volcanoes often have spectacularly good farmland around them (all that ash, ya' know). I'm not quite sure what his point was about earthquakes. Maybe he was thinking of California with both earthquakes and a nice climate?

'God hates trailer parks'

[Lexor]

It's not that God hates trailer parks, it's more that trailer parks are usually built in disaster zones.

Then there's the banks of the Mississippi...

And now there's New Orleans.

Makes me wonder if future generations will build communities around rotted nuclear fission plants because of the 'warm glow' ...

Re:'God hates trailer parks'

[IT_MERC]

God Hates Trailer Parks: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2000/wtorn418 .htm

Bigger Pumps?

[macwhizkid]

Why does it take specifically 9 weeks to pump the water out? More specifically, why can't more pumping capacity (in the form of more powerful pumps, additional pumps, larger pipelines, etc.) be added?

Re:Bigger Pumps?

[imbaczek]

My guess would be that there aren't enough pumps. Think of it: that's a shitload of water over there.

Re:Bigger Pumps?

[Xugumad]

Where from? Pumps on the scale we're talking about aren't exactly lying around, they're manufactured to order. Then there's the problem of power, given the extensive damage. Then we can start talking about working conditions for installing those pumps...

Re:Bigger Pumps?

[gauger22]

Do pumps with great capacity exist? Are they mobile? We are talking about a massive amount of water to move and it isn't like companies keep them on the shelf.

Re:Bigger Pumps?

[SatanicPuppy]

There are actually a large number of those pumps lying...or I should say floating around. Freighters carry extremely weighty pumps for use in shifting ballast water, and they are in a better than usual position for getting close to the city.

Military ships have extra pumping capacity to deal with combat damage, and there are no doubt a few ships in mothballs that could be very useful to reactivate for this purpose.

I know for a fact the core has a number of large pump tankers, because they use them for "Beach Revitilization" which involves pumping water and sand up from the ocean floor and onto existing beach.

So the pumps exist. Still, at this point it is point-less. We need to restore the levies before any of that can begin, and god knows when that will be possible.

Re:What can be done about it?

[YrWrstNtmr]

We all know why this is happening to us.

Yeah. It's called weather.

This is a pointed quote right now.

[Helpadingoatemybaby]

Check out the date on this quote:

"It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us." -- Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004.

Re:This is a pointed quote right now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Blaming it on Bush is a joke. The levees haven't been properly funded for decades.

Re:This is a pointed quote right now.

[ScrewMaster]

No ... but there's been plenty of levies. I have the tax returns to prove it.

Re:This is a pointed quote right now.

[The Mgt]

Blaming it on Bush is a joke.

Yep, I'm blaming it on 'Bush is a joke' too.

Re:This is a pointed quote right now.

[moosesocks]

Excuse me?

As another commenter pointed out, this is a problem that's existed for decades before Bush came around.

All that aside, I don't really get how this is a FEDERAL government issue? As far as I'm concerned, although New Orleans is a big city, it is not vital to the functioning of the rest of the country, thus it is more or less a STATE issue, and when the state didn't recieve the funding to properly secure the city, it should have raised taxes to fund it themselves. If you know your city is going to be destroyed, and you have the power ot prevent it, It's pretty lame to blame another organization for it.

I don't like bush any more than the next guy, but anybody trying to blame this disaster on him is trying to push their own political agenda. From what I've heard, the state of lousiana is overwhelmingly pleased by bush's response to the crisis.

Re:This is a pointed quote right now.

[UziBeatle]

Agreed, blaming it on Bush, Republicrats,whatever, is a joke but they will get away with it. Just now, as I am watching CNN, yet again the mayor of New ORleans is blaming a lot of their problem on 'coastal erosian (loss of marshlands) and the failure of the federal guvment to fix the problem. Not only has the mayor spouted this line but most every LA congresscreature I"ve seen on TV the past few days has spouted the same line. That the federal govment has been shortsighted and it is THEIR fault for not spending 10's of BILLIONS of dollars somehow fixing the marshland problem and for also not fixing the levys (dikes) surrounding New Orleans or updating the pumping system. Before I get jumped on for makign shit up I HEARD a number of (mostly Democrats but some Republicrats have made similar noises) LA congresscreature types ramble on about all this on live TV. IT's one thing to hear it from the congresscreature but it really burrs my ass when the reporters just stand there and suck this shit up and never challange the assholes making the assertion it is all the federal guvments fault. What I'd like to know is just how anyone could rebuild the hundreds, hell thousands of square miles of marshland below New Orleans. Mother nature did a fine job using the mighty river before we diked and routed it to death. Until we rip up New Orleans and south and let the river ebb and flow as she had before it was forced to follow a standard route the marshlands will continue to deteriorate. In the meantime a great many willl get high political points by continuing to blame all their problems on the federal govment for not spending money on their problems which, it must be said, is based on being fucking stupid in the first damn place. It is time to move on, let the old New Orleans die in peace and build a newer, better New ORleans on higher ground. THere is no need to repeat being stupid by building afresh in a goddamed swamp that is sinking into the sea every year that goes by. Duh. HEy, maybe build NEW New Orleans on top of Baton Rouge. Yeah, why not.

Re:This is a pointed quote right now.

[Maserati]

heh

<embed entity = "rimshot">

Re: This is a pointed quote right now.

[Black Parrot]

> Personally, I'd be curious how enrollment would go if they just had a division similar to the national gaurd which had, in writing, that you would never be sent out of the country.

I don't know what the current situation is, but after WWI Canada amended its constitution to say that only volunteers could be sent overseas.

That was the result of Britain using Commonwealth troops as cannon fodder. France wanted to do the same thing with US troops, which was why there was such a fuss about establishing an independent command.

Re:This is a pointed quote right now.

[Qrlx]

The trouble with your nostalgia over Truman's "The Buck Stops Here" placard operates, historically speaking, at roughly the same level as a Norman Rockwell painting.

It's just a sign they use to talk up the great Harry S. Truman in the history books.

I suppose what I'm saying is, with Truman, you got the illusion of authority that you, in your wisdom, can see through today.

Many are beguiled by the charm and illusion (Support Our Troops... By Applying Magnets To Your Car, Truck, And/OR SUV!) Many are not, and there are even a good number who can see Bush for what he is, saw the alternatives (by which I mean Kerry) and opted for Bush. (Though I'm not quite sure what they were thinking.)

***

Did you notice how the pictures we're seeing from New Orleans look like what we always see in far-off countries? All those poor, miserable non-white folks washed out by the storm.

Re:This is a pointed quote right now.

[xlv]

Blaming it on Bush is a joke. The levees haven't been properly funded for decades.

I would not blame the levy breaks on Bush but he certainly had some impact: how many people did die after the hurricane when the water was raising and they drowned in their homes or trying to escape as the National Guard choppers that could have saved them where nowhere to be found because:

a) some (most?) of the helicopters are in Iraq

and/or b) most of their pilots are in Iraq?

I've read an article recently that the local med-evac service had problems because their pilots are in the reserve and being deployed so their choppers stayed grounded even when they're needed...

Re:This is a pointed quote right now.

[Lehk228]

you mean the darwin awards who refused to leave despite a cat 5 storm and mandatory evacuation?

Re:This is a pointed quote right now.

[xlv]

you mean the darwin awards who refused to leave despite a cat 5 storm and mandatory evacuation?

No, I mean the 75 year old handicapped woman who has lost her support network and is too dirt poor/overwhelmed to understand what was going to happen.

Not everybody is as fortunate as you and even if they can understand what is going to happen, what about the airport and Amtrak shutting down way ahead of the storm when the rental cars were not available anymore? They could have provided one way tickets out of the city and we wouldn't have 30.000+ in the Superdome right now...

Re:This is a pointed quote right now.

[typical]

From what I've heard, the state of lousiana is overwhelmingly pleased by bush's response to the crisis.

Bush marketed himself as a dumb religious type. I doubt he can do any wrong in Lousiana's eyes.

Re:This is a pointed quote right now.

[Vintermann]

Yeah, that's what I don't understand. You have a huge millitary over there, they must have a million trucks. Why weren't they dispatched to evacuate the poor of New Orleans? Seems a lot harder and more expensive to move them out with helicopters now...

I can understand that there was little time. I'm both shocked and impressed at the US government response to the crisis. Impressed, because I realize that giving a mandatoy evacuation order in the US is something controversial and quite brave. Shocked because they apparently expected everyone to get on their own.

Re:This is a pointed quote right now.

[justins]

Blaming it on Bush is a joke. The levees haven't been properly funded for decades.

The "Bush didn't create this problem, he just failed to address it!" rationale is getting a little tired.

Actually, it's fucking exhausted.

Re:This is a pointed quote right now.

[drsquare]

Is it a disaster if a 75 year old woman dies? That's around the life expectancy, so it's not exactly something to worry about. Were you expecting people to live forever?

Re:This is a pointed quote right now.

[PopCulture]

the storm went from a "cat 2" to a "cat 5" in something on the order of 72 hours.

Something on the order of 40% of residents of NOLA are at or near the poverty line. You do the math...

Re:What can be done about it?

[grub]

We all know why this is happening to us.

Yep, because terrorists hate our freedom.

How about moving off the flood plain?

[The AtomicPunk]

Does it bother anyone else that our tax dollars will be used to pay for people who didn't have insurance?

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical American attitude. "Every man for himself!". No sense of community at all.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[/dev/trash]

I'd wager that 90% of America is in a flood plain. With that said, only an idiot would want to rebuild in the bowl that is New Orleans. Those pumps are useless, as are the levees, when the rain really falls.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[HairyCanary]

He has a point.

The way I see it, a particular property should get exactly one bailout from the government. After that, it gets branded, kinda like a salvage title on a car. After that, no more bailouts, build at your own risk and with private insurance.

I share the frustration of having to repeatedly bail out people who then promptly go back and build there again. Especially the people who also have private insurance, and who make a lot more money than I do, but choose to live in a high risk area because of the spectacular view. Granted, this is more a Florida problem than a New Orleans one, but in my opinion the solution is the same.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[spisska]

Or more to the point, does it bother anyone that our tax dollars will be used to pay for people who do have insurance, because the insurance companies will run to the government to bail them out when that $20 billion bill comes due?

It's not helping the folks who have no insurance that bothers me. It's helping out comapnies whose business is selling risk, but who end up short on cash when their policies have to be paid out.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[CiXeL]

These people barely have enough money to live let alone buy insurance. Its funny how my opinions have changed now that the economy sucks so bad and jobs pay so little my girlfriend and i have no health insurance. contracted labor is a quick way to poverty but sometimes its all you have.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[wytcld]

Flood insurance is provided by the federal government. You still have to buy it, but private insurers won't touch it. So if the feds stopped providing it large sections of, for instance, the Florida coast would cease to be attractive to development - you can't get a mortgage on something you can't get flood insurance on if it's anywhere that can flood at all.

So, yes, the government should stop providing flood insurance. Except then there would be millions of people in houses suddenly without much value since they can't sell them for much since the new owners couldn't get mortgages. And the banks holding the current mortgages wouldn't be too happy either. And Florida would be in a terrible way, which would be a hell of a repayment for the favor its government did for W back in 2000.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[jdavidb]

Yes it does. I'm happy to give my money to help people to go through unfortunate tragedies, but I don't think I have the right to vote to take your money to do that with.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[pete-classic]

By community you mean redistribution of wealth under threat of loss of liberty?

That's not what I thought it meant at all!

-Peter

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[the eric conspiracy]

90% of America is well above sea level. As far as levees and pumps, well the Dutch seem to get by using that.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[md27]

I'm sure a high category 4 hurricane would kick the crap out of the Dutch, even with all their fancy levees and pumps. So the point of moving the city when it lies below sea level and in the path of hurricanes remains valid.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[snitmo]

It doesn't bother me. Governments will always waste my tax money for one thing or another anyway. Helping people who suffered from a flood is a better way of using my money than, say, attacking Iraq for oil so that the people at the top of the government can get richer.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[bahwi]

Does it bother anyone else that our tax dollars will be used to fight the war in Iraq when half the country didn't support it in the first place?

Would everyone else have looked at the actual evidence for the war in Iraq if they were told that the only people who will pay for the war out of their taxes are the ones who support it?

So no, it doesn't bother me. At least this time my tax money goes to help people who didn't know better at least I'll be able to see some actual improvement other than "Saddam's gone, everything else is a little worse than status quo."

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[JoshRosenbaum]

Yes. We should make this the next slashdot poll. :) When there is a 100% (99.9999999%) chance of storms like this happening again, we shouldn't have to bail these people out. They chose to live there. It'd be interesting to know how much in taxes New Orleans pays to the Federal Gov't (deducting refunds of course). It sounds like they are a fairly big drain not only when there are storms like this, but in just keeping them out of the water from day to day.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[CiXeL]

I'm a relocated tech from los angeles who's job was outsourced so many times i decided to look for opportunity elsewhere. and youre a troll.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[CiXeL]

my girlfriend and i used all our savings to get here to where the cost of living was cheaper. we are from los angeles, my girlfriend has a four year degree in telivision and film which has been outsourced and people are doing it on a volunteer basis while working at mcdonalds. i am a tech worker who's job has been outsourced. we moved from los angeles looking for more opportunity because of the hellish conditions of paying 1175 for a 650 square foot apartment.

i used to be just like you. its only when everything falls apart do you open your eyes and see how very fragile your lifestyle is.

there are many people like me discovering this right now. working hard will get you nowhere these days, only backstabbing will which is something i refuse to do because of my morals.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[Darth Maul]

Then I would simple answer that you did not exactly find the right new opportunity. And there is no way I'm trolling. I'm actually being quite logical.

It was your choice to not maintain work in your field, and you must reap what you sow. It is that simple. Don't blame anyone else (or play the "economy" card ... most of us are doing just fine).

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[CiXeL]

tell that to all my friends out of work in LA with excellent credentials or floating between jobs every few months.

im in my field over here. theres alot more jobs they still dont pay alot or rather theres a nationwide movement towards contract labor.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[sofa king cool]

yes i say move, but if they don't, it should be mandatory for every tourist visiting in the future to bring with them a bucket of dirt.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[X.25]

Does it bother anyone else that our tax dollars will be used to pay for people who didn't have insurance?

"Humanity" gene seems to have been taken out of quite many individuals these days.

I mean, doesn't it bother you that half a trillion dollars of "taxpayer's money" goes for military budget? Ah, that's ok.

But hey - this is real world. 2 minutes of news coverage about victims, then 30 minutes of coverage dedicated to insurance claims and how oil plants were shutdown.

Amazing world, I really wish Vogon fleet arrives soon...

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[RexRhino]

But 100 years ago, people would have the common sense not to build their homes in flood plains and in hurricane prone areas.

When the government started garanting insurance for what is stupid behavior, they eliminated any person cost for building a home in an area where such disasters are inevitable. It is the government insurance that caused the problem in the first place.

If a private insurance company won't insure something, you can damn well be sure it is for a reason: BECAUSE A DISASTER IS INEVITABLE, AND THE COST OF INSURANCE WILL NOT COVER THE PAYOUTS.

American taxpayers are essentially subsidizing disasters.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[Riannin]

It should not harm your morals to learn to use the shift key. Some tech workers in India have mastered this.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many people like me discovering this right now. working hard will get you nowhere these days, only backstabbing will which is something i refuse to do because of my morals.

It's not about working hard. It has never been about working hard. It's about having skills that are needed, and being able to sell yourself, and being able to create value. If people here in the US enjoy a higher standard of living than in India or China, it's because whey're doing more "high end" jobs. With your limited educational background, you're at a disadvantage. Cheap labor can often be had abroad; accept it; not gonna change.

The unemployment rate in the US is pretty low, in particular compared to places like Europe. Do something that's valuable and allows an employer to generate revenue, and you'll do good; a lot of us do. Calling all of us backstabbers is silly.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[The AtomicPunk]

That's why the government continues to take your money for things like Iraq, because you don't give enough of a damn to do anything, so you vote for one of the two big parties with the understanding that a large chunk of *my* money will be stolen for something you want, in exchange for a large chunk of *your* money being stolen for something your neighbor wants.

Want it all to stop? Stop voting for the two big parties. I'm tired of paying for ALL of this crap - be it corporate welfare, wars that don't make any sense, or continually paying to rebuild some idiot's house he insists on rebuilding on the Florida coast every two years because *I* have to pay for it!

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[The AtomicPunk]

Hey, at least providing for national defense was an intended function of the federal government. I don't recall the founders discussing nationalized mandatory insurance.

But yes, both bother me - a lot. Your problem is you argue that stealing money for X is okay because we steal money for Y. Your argument should be that stealing money is wrong.

"Humanity" - that would imply charity, not stealing my money at gun point to pay for someone else's stupidity. Yes, gun point. Try not paying your taxes, then try to prevent everything you own from being taken without due process. You'll end up at gun point very quickly.

If we weren't all forced to pay an average of 55% of our income in total taxes (TOTAL, not income), there'd be a hell of a lot more money to go to CHARITY.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[knewter]

Are you ACTUALLY arguing that it's impossible to plan for the future? Just curious. Here's an idea - get a job as a tech worker. Yeah, it's hard. No, it's not impossible. Not by a long shot. In the past year I've run about four jobs (three were just my own doing, for kicks...one was my full time job). Any of them could have paid my way through life. You and your girlfriend could easily get minimum wage jobs, work 60 hours a week a piece, and live like slightly-underprivileged kings. Would you be driving a BMW? No. Guess what: I drive a Ford Focus. Judging from your whining, I probably make more than you. I'm paying my way through college cash up front at the moment.
 
But hey, congratulations on your defeatist viewpoint. I'm sure it's just the way life works, and not your miserable view of it, that's the cause of your predicament. This is a nice comment to read in this particular thread: both you and the people in New Orleans need to learn to make better decisions. I'm not being heartless in the face of either predicament - I give time and money to those in need. However, it's time for the citizens of this fine nation to learn that there are consequences to every single action you take. As for your statement that "working hard will get you nowhere these days," it turns out working hard has gotten me at least one non-whining-day ahead of you...

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[mnemonic_]

No, Libertarian attitude. This is Slashdot after all.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[typical]

I mean, doesn't it bother you that half a trillion dollars of "taxpayer's money" goes for military budget?

Yes, it does, actually.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[SonicSpike]

That's why you need to go into business for yourself. It is the only way to build wealth other than being a professional and heavy investing.

In India there are 2 classes of commoners: The low class and the merchants.

Why do you think so many east Indians own 7-11's in this country? None of them would dare work a wage job trading time for money because it doesn't lead anywhere except to a lifestyle living from paycheck to paycheck.

That's what America is about- the opportunity to start your own business! If you don't like how things are working out for you, you can change them. Yes it invovles risk but success is 10% intelligence and 90% effort.

Congrats on moving out of LA, BTW! That is a good start.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[musth]

I think you missed his point about learning humility in the experience of defeat. Education is all well and good, but there's plenty of well-educated people who have been unable to find good work in their chosen fields. Believing that it's just a matter of getting the right high-end skills and selling yourself well (everything's for sale in our world) is a reflection of often unfounded faith in our economic system. But it doesn't work out so nicely for so many people, even ones who live by The Rules.

Modern US capitalism and the government policies which serve the corporations screw lots of people, every day, in many ways. When one is successful, especially earlier in life, one tends to believe the success is a result of their own good character, intelligence, effort, whatever. The longer you live, the more you learn how quickly things can change, and how significant the externalities are.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[scharkalvin]

Actualy there probably isn't ANYWHERE in this country that couldn't be hit by a disaster so bad that it could wreck the insurance industry.
Midwest: Killer tornados. Southeast coast: Hurricanes. Northeast: blizards, and(Belive it or not) earthquakes. Westcoast: earthquakes, volcanos,
and Hurricanes (Pacific hurricanes can be WORSE than atlantic and can head east and hit the US coast).
There is the potential for a disaster involving chemical (or worse) shipments via rail or truck that can happen anywhere. Mix terrorists into the equation and there you go.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[the eric conspiracy]

The Dutch are on the North Sea which has a pretty fierce reputation of its own.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[EllisDees]

People shouldn't be rewarded for choosing a stupid place to build their homes. Don't build on a hillside in California(earthquakes and mudslides), or in one of the valleys near Mt. St. Helens or Mt. Ranier (pyroclastic flows), or anywhere in New Orleans (because you are under water).

And for god's sake, don't live in a trailer in Arkansas!

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[Dun Malg]

my girlfriend and i used all our savings to get here to where the cost of living was cheaper.

One of the dirty little secrets of places where the cost of living is lower is that wages are also lower.

my girlfriend has a four year degree in telivision and film

Wow. Possibly the only degree more worthless than my incomplete english degree.

i am a tech worker who's job has been outsourced.

So? Find something else. Load boxes on trucks for UPS. Become a plumber. we moved from los angeles looking for more opportunity because of the hellish conditions of paying 1175 for a 650 square foot apartment.

You think that's "hellish"? Bah! Try NY or San Francisco. I have, at various times in my life, ended up having to put up to 75% of my income into rent. It ain't easy, but it also ain't hell. If you anf your GF can't net 250 bucks a week each, that's pretty lame. You may not be able to do that in the field of your choosing, but there ain't no right to a life of fulfilling employment. Face it: IT guys are a dime a dozen, and "TV and film" are only reasonably good employment for a very lucky (that's "lucky" as in well connected) few.

there are many people like me discovering this right now. working hard will get you nowhere these days, only backstabbing will which is something i refuse to do because of my morals.

Wah. Working hard will get you anywhere these days. You just have to work hard at the right thing. Indeed, there are some fields where working hard generally won't get you squat. The solution is to choose a different field! You think I started off wanting to be a locksmith? Then a telecommunications tech? Then an electrician? You gotta pick work that you can get paid for.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[/dev/trash]

When the Dutch get a Catergory 5 hurricane, then we'll talk.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[AK Marc]

my girlfriend and i used all our savings to get here to where the cost of living was cheaper.

The cost of living may be lower, but the wages generally match the cost of living, making it all a wash.

we are from los angeles, my girlfriend has a four year degree in telivision and film which has been outsourced and people are doing it on a volunteer basis while working at mcdonalds. i am a tech worker who's job has been outsourced.

Maybe your job wasn't outsourced. You have a run on sentence, you can't even spell TV, your grammar indicates that your girlfriend's degree was outsourced, and not any job she may have had with it, you misspell "whose," and you haven't figured out what the keys marked "Shift" are for.

Since you have so many mistakes in just two sentences, do you think it might be that you were told your job was outsourced just so that you could be fired for incompetence? If I were your boss, I'd have considered it because of your poor communication skills.

And no, this isn't a spelling/grammar flame. I'm pointing our that all your problems in the world aren't necessarily because the world is out to get you, but that maybe you do have some control in your fate, but you have just been letting it slide. Why don't you go out and get a tech job that hasn't been outsourced yet? I know they are out there. Why don't you take some pride in your communication skills? Practice professional communication everywhere, including here, and maybe they won't decide to outsource your next job.

Re:WTF?

[locke_00]

It's an engineer's field day. News for Engineers = News for Nerds.

Re:WTF?

[Kelson]

Well, it'll be a series of massive enginering projects: cleanup, design buildings and infrastructure to withstand another such storm, and implement (i.e. build) the design.

That techie enough for ya?

Get rid of terrorsits

[maxogden]

Everyone knows terrorists from around the world trained thousands of dolphins, sent them to the gulf of mexico, and had them start swimming in a massive circular motion, thus creating Katrina. To prevent this from happening in the future, we just have to go into North Korea and Iran and bomb them into submission. Once we're done with that, we can remove their dictator and put in a puppet government.

Double Levee

[N8F8]

They should be looking at a double Levee design so a single failure point won't become catastrophic. Much like modern ship design you have a inner and outer containment system with partitioned spaces. Have water flooding stormsewer systems drive pumps to pump down levees.

__________________________
_____|______|______|_____|

Re:Double Levee

[tuxedobob]

The article said there were two points of failure. Whether in a single levee or double it didn't say.

Re:Double Levee

[N8F8]

The problem is that a small breach quickly becomes a large breach as the water rushes in. With a double levee the watter wouldn't rush in and the breach could be repaired. As it stands they are screwed short of parking a battleship in front of the hole.

Re:Leave it alone

[i.r.id10t]

There is a biiig port in that area, so I wouldn't say "little practical value"

New Orleans is sinking every year...

[Cerdic]

What can be done about draining and rebuilding New Orleans in light of the massive flooding, and what can be done to prevent and/or lessen such disasters in the future?

That's a good question considering that New Orleans, already below sea level, is sinking at a rate of about a meter (three feet) per century. Three feet per century doesn't sound like much, but the city is expected to be under water by the year 2100.

Re:New Orleans is sinking every year...

[bratwiz]

Gee... let's see... THREE feet per century. And its like, uhhh, errrr, (thinking) oh yeah! 2005 NOW. So in 100 years (that's a century in doggie beers) it will be like-- whoaaaa-- ancient dude--- it will be 2105! And it will be THREE FEET LOWER!

Three feet == under water???

Hmm..

I don't think so. Maybe I should smoke some more man, and then everything will look smaller.... and shit.

Re:New Orleans is sinking every year...

[Cerdic]

Three feet of sinking plus other issues, like rising water levels. Here, read this time story:

http://www.time.com/time/reports/mississippi/orlea ns.html

Re:New Orleans is sinking every year...

[xs650]

It already is.

Re:New Orleans is sinking every year...

[rewt66]

the city is expected to be under water by the year 2100.

Um, dude, the city is under water right now. I don't mean just the flooding from Katrina - New Orleans has large areas that are 8 or 10 feet below sea level. So in a century, it has large parts that are 11 or 13 feet below sea level. That's worse, but not majorly worse.

Keep the national guard at home

[lawpoop]

"... what can be done to prevent and/or lessen such disasters in the future?"

How about keeping the national guard at home so that we have a trained and able bodied army of people available to actually do the work? Right now I've heard that there's anywhere from 3K-6K Louisiana national guard troops following the story from Iraq.

Give thanks again to the GWB administration's inability to govern.

Re:Keep the national guard at home

[malakai]

Louisiana has 65% of their national guard troops at home. Only half of those will be activated for the relief effort (~3,500). The fact is, we're set up to handle two simulataneous wars at the same time and a natural disaster. No states national guard troop level is below 60% even witht he war in Iraq (and it's not just Iraq, troops are in 40 countries).

But bitch away anyhow, it's surely helping the situation.

(and Alabama has 70% available, Mississippi has 65% available. Far more than will ever be called upon).

Re:Keep the national guard at home

[Anonymous Coward]

The first thing to remember is that while 65% of the current Louisiana National Guard are in country, the total number of troops in the National Guard have been shrinking over the last few years due to a few years of recruitment shortages.

The second thing to remember is that numbers alone aren't the whole story. One has to consider that those soldiers trained in the kinds of specialties that are going to be needed over the next month, such as transportation, medical support, military police and aviation are more likely to be in demand in Iraq and therefore are more likely to be on their second and third rotation over seas.

The final part comes in the form of equipment. The National Guard and Reserves have always been subject to hand-me-downs from the active duty units. When something big happens and large numbers of AR/NG units are deployed, they often do so with equipment gathered from non-deployed AR/NG units in order to be at full strength. So large amounts of AR/NG equipment that could be used in this emergency are going to be sitting in the desert right now and won't be getting back any time soon.

In the end, I'd put the actual effectiveness in terms of soldiers and equipment of the current Louisiana National Guard at around 30-40% of what they were prior to Iraq.

Re:Keep the national guard at home

[olympus_coder]

I second that. One thing being through several disasters has taught me is that the US goverment has more than enough reserve resources for something like this. It is GETTING THEM THERE that is the problem.

The armed services have mobile system to feed/house/clothe 100Ks and even millions of people. But, that many resource take A LONG TIME to move, even when you have air fields, ports and highways. All airport are underwater, the ports are closed and the highways are trashed.

The military can deal with that, but it takes more time. It won't be pleasent, but no-one will starve to death in the short term if they make 1/2 an effort to get help for themselves. Unfortunatly, alot of people are dead now (or are so close anything but immediate intervention will not help) .

In the long term, alot of people are probably screwed, but hay, that is life. We can all pitch in to minimize it, but that is it. That is the price to pay for living in a coastal area that is below sea level (for whatever reason).

Re:Keep the national guard at home

[Darth Maul]

Stop it! You're just confusing him with facts.
That's so unfair.

Re:Keep the national guard at home

[DMUTPeregrine]

And why the HELL can a war outside the US affect the STATE'S national guard? Those are supposed to be for the state's defense, not wars in other countries!

Re:Keep the national guard at home

[YrWrstNtmr]

The first thing to remember is that while 65% of the current Louisiana National Guard are in country, the total number of troops in the National Guard have been shrinking over the last few years due to a few years of recruitment shortages

The total number of troops (Guard and otherwise) has been shrinking since the early 90's, and the end of the cold war. Not just the last few years.

Re:Keep the national guard at home

[Scudsucker]

But they've been shrinking faster, no? And with good reason.

Re:Keep the national guard at home

[YrWrstNtmr]

But they've been shrinking faster, no?

No.

Re:Keep the national guard at home

[Guppy06]

You're assuming that the other half of guards units undeployed aren't themselves in need of said relief. Most of the population in Louisiana lives in the parts Katrina hit, and I suspect many of them wouldn't even be able to reach their armories even if they were called to them.

The advantage of the state militias is that they're around to help with local problems. The disadvantage is that they're effected by the local problems.

Re:Keep the national guard at home

[lawpoop]

"But bitch away anyhow, it's surely helping the situation."

If our electred representatives have executed a poor idea, we should bitch, and bitch loudly and directly to them, so that they get the message and don't do it again, or face losing the next election.

Bitching is one of the best and most effective ways Joe American has to influence the political system. For the record, sending the national guard across the globe is a bad idea. That's what the armed forces are for. Make sure that your elected representatives at least going on record saying so.

Re:Keep the national guard at home

[Dun Malg]

And why the HELL can a war outside the US affect the STATE'S national guard? Those are supposed to be for the state's defense, not wars in other countries!

You are incorrect. As their rather long motto says in the first line, "I Am the Guard. Civilian in Peace, Soldier in War". The National Guard has essentially been a part of the US military since 1903-- i.e. callable as a military reserve force-- when the state militias were officially nationalized. The difference between the Guard and the actual Reserves is that the Guard can also be called upon by the state authorities. The advantage to the NG over the Reserves is that a Guardsman is less likely to be shipped overseas, as some portion og the Guard must remain behind in case of domestic needs. The NG has been called upon to fight in every single foreign conflict since the spanish-american war. Claims that the guard is being misused are pure ignorance.

Re:Keep the national guard at home

[Scudsucker]

No.

You are sure of this because...? Googling for "national guard troop levels 1990..2005" turned up squat.

Re:Keep the national guard at home

[YrWrstNtmr]

The parent comment I was replying to is asking (and answering) the wrong questions.

Is the military, incl the Army National Guard, getting smaller? Yes it is.
Is it getting smaller, because of planned reductions, or is it getting smaller because they can't retain/recruit people. It is the former.
Is the rate of end strength reduction faster or slower? If you had paid attention to the massive drawdowns in the mid-late 90's, you'd know this answer. No, it's not faster.

For instance, for the Air Guard, FY 2004:
" He [Chief Master Sgt. Richard Smith, the Air National Guard's command chief master sergeant] said retention was a key in fiscal year 2004 with more than 91.3 percent of ANG members reenlisting when their commitment was up. That exceeded the retention goal of 88 percent.
"We met our end strength by overachieving our retention goal," he said. "But that means we didn't meet our recruiting goal"

Over 90% reenlistment is good in anyones book. Why is recruitment down? Primarily, because active duty members getting out are not then joining the Guard in the same numbers as they did before. And this is the same in the Army Guard.

Overall, the USAF is stlll getting smaller. Planned end strength reductions. They are letting people out early, in some career fields.

The parent is making the incorrect assusmption that the military can't recruit and retain people, and is 'shrinking faster' than before because of that. That is simply false. Is it harder? Maybe.

Re:Keep the national guard at home

[DerekLyons]

And why the HELL can a war outside the US affect the STATE'S national guard? Those are supposed to be for the state's defense, not wars in other countries!

That stopped being true about a century ago when our neighbors stopped being threats. Here in the 21st century we have a standing army and transport that can cross the globe (let alone a continent or a state) in hours.

If it were legal for a state that wants it's own forces is free to stop accepting the Federal money that arms, trains, and pays for the National Guard - I suspect almost none would be willing.

Re:Keep the national guard at home

[swelke]

Wake up and smell the Bush. What do you think all of those state national guard units have been busy with the last few years? I'll give you a hint: it's somewhere between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Re:Too much

[bobsacks]

Is land really cheap down there or something?

Kind of obvious...

[But Who's Counting]

What can be done? Easy! a) don't build metropolitan areas in geographically stupid locations, and b) quit destroying the Lousiana wetlands, which would have acted as natural buffers against just this sort of disaster. Problem is, nobody actually wants to hear those answers. Ah, well.

Easy enough

[blueadept1]

"...what can be done to prevent and/or lessen such disasters in the future?"

Um. Don't build your city on a flood plain?

Re:Leave it alone

[RGRistroph]

You forgot the Mississippi river on the 4th side. That is often at a higher level than any of the other three (always higher than the sea, which not a direct neighbor yet -- needs a few more storms for that).

As for insurance, the US gov has bailed out every insurance company that hit bad times insuring Florida or Texas or California property, so why not ? It's a win-win situation -- nothing happens, you get the premiums, something happens, the Gov pays for you.

I predict people will move right back in, rebuild with easy gov-backed credit, and repeat all these mistakes again while our national deficit balloons.

Move New Orleans

[Colonel Panic]

Maybe they should seriously consider moving the whole city to someplace more stable (not below sea-level and not sinking).
Yeah, that'll be very expensive, but if they don't do seriously consider the moving option now, they'll probably have to consider it some time in the next 50 years anyway. Given the location and parameters (below sea-level and below Mississippi level much of the time) it's amazing that NL has lasted this long. Perhaps we should consider NL to be the first victim of Global Warming (which produces stronger hurricanes and higher ocean levels).

Re:Move New Orleans

[Greyfox]

Ohh there's an idea! I suggest that they move the entire city of New Orleans to upstate New York! They could take bids from various states to move there, but then they risk someone like Kansas or North Dakota winning, which would suck. Upstate New York doesn't really get Hurricans, just the occasional blizzard. And blizzards don't flatten your entire damn city!

Don't view it as the worst natural disaster of the century! View it as a new opportunity to change the local scenery! Of course, I guess they'd technically have to name it New New Orleans at that point, but that's not really a big deal.

Re:Move New Orleans

[rsynnott]

Sadly, the first victim of global warming will likely be Bangladesh, and various Pacific islands. The Netherlands is extremely rich, and will to an extent be able to maintain the dikes.

Re:Move New Orleans

[Colonel Panic]

Oops...

Corrected version:
it's amazing that N.O. has lasted this long. Perhaps we should consider N.O. to be the first victim of Global Warming (which produces stronger hurricanes and higher ocean levels).

Re:Move New Orleans

[cosmic_0x526179]

Yeah, that'll be very expensive

Unless you take the perspective that the city is a total write-off. Its going to be very close to that if the it really takes 9-weeks to pump it out. All the drywall is shot. You are going to have great amounts of wood rot. The carpet mills will be weaving for decades to meet the demand. Why not turn it into a big biological swamp exhibit and move upriver a ways ?

Re:Move New Orleans

[The Mgt]

why not move New Orleans to where the Lake was

Because the lake will still be there. It isn't a freshwater lake, it's connected to the Gulf of Mexico

Re:Move New Orleans

[bwalling]

Maybe they should seriously consider moving the whole city to someplace more stable (not below sea-level and not sinking). Yeah, that'll be very expensive,

It won't be any more expensive than building the city where it was. It's no longer a city - it's a place where a city used to be. They have to build a new one, it's just a matter of where the do it.

Re:Move New Orleans

[Rallion]

It seems to me that building elsewhere would probably be significantly CHEAPER. Cleanup costs for this are going to be incredible.

Re:Move New Orleans

[aminorex]

Or ship the Ethiopians to New Orleans.

Re:Move New Orleans

[ross.w]

Kind of ironic that the first city to fall victim to global warming should be in the nation that is probably #1 of the main culprits.

Re:Move New Orleans

[fermion]

I don't know if it is a victim of global warming, but certainly a victim of overdevelopment and changing weather patterns. A similiar thing happened in houston a few years ago. An overnight rain storm caused the worst flooding the city had seen in a very long time. This storm completely redefined the flood plains in the city. The flooding was largely due to the cementing of the city, in particular the mass building of townhouses and large strip centers without adequate flood control measures. Laws have since been put in place to help resolve this problem.

New Orleans is unlikely to go away, but it might not be the city it is today. After a flood like this people tend to move inland. Look at galveston in 1899. It was a major city for the time. Texas had about half the percentage of the US population that it has now, but galveston had a significant percentage of that. Then a hurricane destroyed Galveston. Galveston did not go away, but many moved in 50 miles to houston. Galveston is only 50% bigger than it was in 1900, while Texas and Houston has grown to hold significant percentages of the US population.

I am sure some parts of New Orleans will be rebuilt. I am sure that some will move back. But given that the US coastline in moving inland, and even Houston at some point will be uninhabitable, I think many will make the rational decision to relocate. Take a look at a topological map and discover how much of the gulf coast is just tens of feet above sea level.

Re:Move New Orleans

[dodobh]

Kind of ironic that the first city to fall victim to global warming should be in the nation that is probably #1 of the main culprits.

Heh, no. The excessive rainfall in Mumbai in July would be a sign of global warming too. The water level there was only 3 feet in places, with some areas going to 10 feet or more.

But yes, global warming affects the entire human species, and I wish I could do something to help out the affected people.

Re:Move New Orleans

[Fastball]

Think Kansas and North Dakota suck? Try Mardi Gras in upstate NY in February. That, my five-digit friend, would suck.

Re:Move New Orleans

[jackbird]

no comparison Agreed, but you didn't see Good Morning America today, I take it, where they compared the storm surge UPRIVER to Tsunami footage. Assholes.

Re:Move New Orleans

[Fastball]

Ethiopians sucking on crawdads. As if a diverse city couldn't get any more diverse. That's beautiful. Tell them to bring their coffee!

Re:Move New Orleans

[Remlik]

If global warming exists it will not cause stronger hurricanes, in fact it will weaken them.

The warming occures at the poles, melting the ice caps, this in turn pumps COLD water throughout the rest of the oceans resulting in an overall decline in sea temperature. Go read some of the theories. There may be pockets of warmer oceans such as the gulf of mexico but overall a global warming trend would decrease the ocean temps and reduce the severity of hurricanes.

Stop listening to the retards on CNN..

Re:Move New Orleans

[Speedcraver]

Build a hotspot, they will come..............Or a Starbucks.

Re:Move New Orleans

[SomeOtherGuy]

I am checking out a piece of land here in the midwest plains (right next to a spot I am pimping as a replacement Israel) that would work great for a new "Big Easy". We really need the tax base out here.

Re:Move New Orleans

[Hans Lehmann]

People didn't just own the houses that got flooded, they also owned the land underneath. Is the government just going trade everyone, acre-for-acre, some developable land that they just happen to have sitting around? This isn't like the national petroleum reserve; you can't just stockpile habitable land for some day when you may need to move a city there.

Re:Move New Orleans

[sail4evr]

Now is the time to do it while people are living in refugee centers. There will be very little resistance to moving to a new home at the government's expense. Eminent domain 1,000 sq miles in the midwest and build a new city. Disney World did it in FL. There was nothing when they started. Look at it now.
What would all these people do for work? That's the tough question. Call centers?

Re:Move New Orleans

[hanwen]

The warming occures at the poles, melting the ice caps, this in turn pumps COLD water throughout the rest of the oceans resulting in an overall decline in sea temperature. Go read some of the theories.

Please post some links to relevant, established literature. FWIW, coral reefs are dying off across the earth, something which is explained by the warming of the ocean.

Perhaps you are confusing the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation? When too much fresh water melts near greenland, this will stop the warm gulf-current that keep NW europe in such a nice climate.

I don't want to sound insensitive, but...

[dividedsky319]

...is it really smart to pump out, and rebuild right where everything is?

I mean, there's really nothing they can do to guarantee this doesn't happen again. I doubt they're going to be able to make it so the city isn't still below sea level...

I know there's really no other option, but... this is bound to happen again at some point in the future.

Remember the floods in the midwest in 1993?

[linuxtelephony]

There was at least one city the relocated after the flood. Yup, I said CITY.

The only way to stop this from happening again is to rebuild on higher ground. If they rebuild where they are, it will be a matter of when it happens again, not if.

Same thing applies to a lot of people around the coast, intentionally building in flood planes (and I'm not talking about 500 year flood plains, I'm talking less than 100). Not to mention, in many cases the construction itself makes the problem worse.

Perhaps, New Orleans should look to Venice for a solution.

Re:Remember the floods in the midwest in 1993?

[mad.frog]

Perhaps, New Orleans should look to Venice for a solution.

Huh? Venice is half-underwater for, what, 1/3 of the year these days?

Last I heard, the proposed Giant MultiBillionDollar Venice Saving Levee Project Thingee was still mired in politics.

I guess Venice at least has the excuse of being hundreds of years older, and not built actually *below* sea level (more like *exactly at* sea level)...

Re:Remember the floods in the midwest in 1993?

[sheehaje]

I know a lot of people are thinking:

A) Just move the City
B) Just build it like this city or that city
C) New Orleans is just an party town, and of no apparent other use.

It's easy to say build it like Venice, or do it like the Netherlanders, in reality, New Orleans is different.

The reality is, a Category 5 or 4 Hurricane would devastate just about any city close to water without worrying even about the wind damage.

To the people saying just move away and don't bother, its easy to think that way when not looking at the whole picture. New Orleans is a BIG port, and there it's also a huge fishing area, and damn nice place to live without hurricanes like Katrina.

The real solution I think is to break up the levy system and use mother nature to do its own restoration work. New Orleans is sinking because the Mississippi can't redeposit sediment and create a natural barrier. Yes, without the levies there will be yearly flooding, and its an initial logistical nightmare, but without spending billions on systems that could fail again, it's the best long term solution. Right now, NOLA is devastated, and the levy systems as to be initially put up to pump out, but with the current cycle of stronger and more frequent hurricanes in the carribean and gulf, it's just a short term solution.

Let's not forget though, that while New Orleans is the easiest place to look and claim that its just a problem with the land, just look a little East where the hurricane eyewall passed, and the devastation is just as horrific to communities not below sea level.

Re:Remember the floods in the midwest in 1993?

[smithcl8]

Leaving a city of this size and importance to the US economy in the hands of Mother Nature is one thing, but to leave it for sure disaster is another. This isn't a place that we can only hope to get a few years out of here and there....if left to Mother Nature, the city could have to relocate every decade to take advantage of the deeper waters elsewhere.

I saw a neat PBS show about the delta a year or so ago. The "rivers" in the delta normally fill up and, when they do, the water just redirects to the next easy path to the Gulf. This could end up either filling New Orleans in or rerouting enough to ruin the economy there. We can't afford to chase the best route up the Mississippi....there are just too many cities depending on that trade (New Orleans, St. Louis, Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, to name a few).

I think we should invest in fixing the levee system to the best of our engineering capability and hope this kind of thing doesn't happen again. It's the only solution that will provide a stable, long-term positive economic situation for the South and Midwest.

Re:Remember the floods in the midwest in 1993?

[RGRistroph]

St. Louis, Louisville, Cincinnati, and Pittsburg would not change location if the branch of the delta being used by the river changed. Just New Orleans.

Re:Remember the floods in the midwest in 1993?

[scheme]

St. Louis, Louisville, Cincinnati, and Pittsburg would not change location if the branch of the delta being used by the river changed. Just New Orleans.

The barges being used to ship goods to and from those cities would need to get a new port however and that would get expensive after a few relocations.

Don't miss this Popular Mechanics article

[H0NGK0NGPH00EY]

Popular Mechanics also did a piece on the disaster that was just waiting to happen in New Orleans. Check it out.

Re:Don't miss this Popular Mechanics article

[jcr]

Woah.. Did you notice the dateline on that article?

9/11/01.

Spooky.

-jcr

Re:Don't miss this Popular Mechanics article

[aschran]

Nova ScienceNOW also did a report in January 2005 on New Orleans' particular vulnerability to hurricanes. As has been said, this was definitely (and unfortunately) a disaster waiting to happen. Watch the 12-minute segment here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3204/02.ht ml

Send your AOL CD's to New Orleans...

[Dr. Zowie]

... together with back-issues of National Geographic. That should avoid the problem in the future by raising the grade level by 5-7 meters.

Re:Send your AOL CD's to New Orleans...

[CheeseTroll]

Why was the parent modded as a Troll? Being married to a librarian, I found this funny. Librarians contend with people donating their 50-year collections of National Geographic all the time, as if they are some kind of rare collectible. Clean out everyone's attics, ship 'em south, and bulk up the whole city.

Re:Global Warming = stronger hurricanes, so....

[thrillseeker]

stopping global warming would help

It'll get mighty cold around here if you put out the sun.

Re:Too much

[ScrewMaster]

It is now.

And yet nothing was done...

[vapor2000]

The consequences of this storm have been realized for DECADES. I haven't seen an inkling of an emergency action plan on the part of the city or the state. The fact that 10000 people are still in the Superdome (that they were even sent there in the first place!) shows that in spite of all kinds of warning the level of preparation for an inevitable disaster were tragically inadequate.

Hoping for lucky breaks is not a reasonable plan of action. In fact it is almost criminal. Once NO gets through this disaster I hope someone takes a long hard look at the negligence that lead to this. An investigatory committee like the 9/11 commission would be a good model.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[jlanthripp]

I was just wondering, what exactly COULD have been done? Have everybody face southeast and blow really hard to make the hurricane move further east?

The only thing that you can do when there's a hurricane coming is GET THE FUCK OUT. A mandatory evacuation was announced at least 36 hours beforehand. Anyone with half a brain had ample opportunity to GET THE FUCK OUT.

Knowing that there are plenty of people with less than half a brain, they opened up the Superdome so when those dipshits finally realized, too late, that the governor really meant it when he said GET THE FUCK OUT, they'd have something to cower in besides their single-story wooden houses left over from the Great Depression and earlier.

3/4 of a million MRE's, millions of gallons of bottled water, etc. etc. were all staged at nearby locations (as close as they could get without being just as fucked as the idiots who stayed in the city).

So, my question to you is this: What else was the government supposed to do to save the stragglers from their own stupidity?

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[IdolizingStewie]

Yes, sending people to the Superdome was not a good option, but the intended group of people to be housed there was the locals who didn't have access to a car or other method of leaving the city. What do you suggest those people should have done? You can't walk very far in the 36 hours they had after the evacuation notice. Ok, so maybe you take the city buses and evacuate people in them. Where to? There is no good solution. Now if you want to talk about the hotels telling tourists, "Sure, go ahead and stay. Nothing to worry about," then you'd have a point.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[PlusFiveTroll]

Um, sorry, if 'nothing' was done we'd be talking about the 100,000 dead today, maybe more. This is the secenaro that had been forseen for years. People were told to get the hell out of the city. Most that could did, may Idiots stayed that could leave, then there are tens of thousands of poor, elderly, and crackheads that dont have any means of doing so. The traffic was jammed for hours leaving the city, you've probably never been there, its a huge swamp with water on all sides, building more roads is extremely expensive, and the conservationist would go nuts if you tried to put a 10 lane highway in.

If the people didnt go to the superdome, they may be dead, there are not many places to go, I live over 250 miles away and ALL the hotels are full. Trying to bus 10,000 people in a day is a logistic nightmare. Remember they called the Superdome 'A place of last resort', that meant get out of the city now.

Now getting the people that are there out is a bigger nightmare, only one way out of the city, and if the water levels rise, it too may be cut off. If you live close and have a flat bottom boat, they may need your help over there.

Most of the dead so far have been in MS, not LA.

Your post is emotional drivel, you cant even grasp the scope of this disaster. Thousands of square miles of land has been severly affected by this storm, even with 100,000 emergency workers its going to take days to find survivors, and weeks for even the most basic clean up to get underway.

We live at the mercy of nature, when we think that we have it beaten, it shows it true power and our foolishness.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[Kingrames]

People who were born less smart, less tough, or less fortunate were not condemned to suffer.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[Freshman]

Many of those "dipshits" you are talking about rely exclusively on public transportation and/or are too poor to just up and leave.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[vinlud]

What else was the government supposed to do to save the stragglers from their own stupidity?

Provide proper transportation and shelter? Most people staying in the city had no cars and were too poor to pay for hotels (which increased their prices for more profit). It is entirely logical they had no other option than to stay in the city. Don't call them idiots, not every American has the possibilities you apparantly have..

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[ggreeneva]

Dear God, how fatuous can one man get...

1. New Orleans is a walkable, compact city with good public transportation. Lots of folks get around without cars
2. A great proportion of the people of N.O. are poor. Lots of folks have to get around without cars.
3. N.O. attracts throngs of tourists — many of whom had flights and train departures scheduled well after the hurricane warning. No cars for many of them.
4. Airlines canceled much of their service to avoid losing planes. That means no last minute bookings for most.
5. N.O. sits in the middle of a marsh, surrounded by water on three sides. Only a few overland escape routes exist -- and even then, to escape the hazards of a hurricane, people would have to walk/bike a long f---ing way.
6. Finally, a lot of people are old, and/or sick. Are they driving? Walking? Teleporting? Do tell, please.

Yes, with every hurricane we have stubborn mules who refuse to get out of the way. No argument there. But many people wanted to get out, and couldn't. Some might be dead, or in need of saving — and that has plenty to do with misfortune, and nothing to do with your haughty presumption of superior intelligence.

In other words: take your 'get the f--- out' blowhard rant, and kindly shove it up your...

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[Guppy06]

"A mandatory evacuation was announced at least 36 hours beforehand. Anyone with half a brain had ample opportunity to GET THE FUCK OUT."

First off, it's hurricane season. Certain parishes in Louisana are told to evacuate every month or so. After so many false positives, it's only a matter of time before a person, any person, tunes it out.

Secondly, you need more than half a brain. You need a car, a tank full of gas, and someplace out-of-state to go to. We're talking about New Orleans here, not Beverly Hills. Compare the number of people in the city who didn't evacuate with the city's poverty rate and you may learn something.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[jlanthripp]

1. It's 8 miles (give or take) from the Causeway Bridge to Chef Menteur Highway. Hardly a walkable city. The tourists walk the French Quarter and think they've seen the city. I call bullshit.
2. A great majority of the people in New Orleans has feet and the ability to use them. Even getting to La Place, 25 miles west on either I-10 or Airline Highway, is better than sitting in New Orleans. At least La Place isn't under water last I checked. At a decent walking speed of 2 miles per hour, that makes it a 12.5 hour walk.
3. Those tourists tend to also have feet, rental cars, or other means of transport. For that matter, they can catch a ride with a local - most of the people I've known down there would at least give up a spot in the back of the truck or something. If I still lived down there, you can bet your ass I'd be willing to give somebody a ride if they wanted to go.
4. See number 3.
5. Causeway Bridge to Covington, then I-12 West. I-10 West to Baton Rouge, or catch I-55 North just outside La Place and take it to Hammond, or to Jackson, MS. Airline Highway West, also to Baton Rouge (or just to La Place or Lutcher). I-59 North to Meridian, MS or follow it all the way to I-24 in the northwest corner of GA. Highway 90 West to Hahnville, then 3127 West goes halfway to Baton Rouge. River Road as far as Memphis if you like. There's 7 escape routes right off the top of my head. Any able-bodied person on foot could have made it to La Place or Hahnville within 12 hours or so, depending on what side of the river they started out from. Both of those places have high schools which are used as shelters in hurricanes, and both are above sea level (and here's to hoping the East Saint John Wildcats kick the crap out of the Hahnville Tigers and the overprivileged Destrehan Wildcats this year, assuming they get to play. Yes, I know, that's 2 high school football teams in the same division with the same team name...go figure.)
6. There are, of course, those who could not walk/bike/drive to safety, and it is for them that I reserve my pity and my disaster relief donation dollars. If the idiots had gotten out when they were told to, the emergency services currently being used to airlift Boudreaux, Scioneaux and Arceneaux (yes, those are real names) off the roofs of their houses could instead be used to evacuate the few elderly, handicapped, and infirm.

My "haughty presumption of superior intellect" is based upon the fact that about 80-90% of the people down there did leave, meaning the ones left behind are the dumbest 10-20% and those who physically couldn't leave. I'd bet my next paycheck that the former outnumber the latter 10 to 1.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[William-Ely]

"Provide proper transportation and shelter? Most people staying in the city had no cars and were too poor to pay for hotels (which increased their prices for more profit). It is entirely logical they had no other option than to stay in the city. Don't call them idiots, not every American has the possibilities you apparantly have.."

Also not everyone has home or renters insurance. I know you are supposed to but when times are tough I can see how some people would let their policy lapse.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[jlanthripp]

See my reply to ggreeneva.

Reader's Digest Condensed Version:

Walking is free, and there are plenty of places that can be reached on foot in 12 hours or so that are above sea level. I know this because I've walked from Storyville Jazz Hall (which is now called "Margaritaville Cafe" and probably underwater) to La Place.

The ones who couldn't physically walk, couldn't find a ride, and didn't have a car to drive are the ones I feel sorry for...the ONLY ones I feel sorry for. I mean, I feel bad for everybody who lost their homes, but that's something that nothing could be done about. There are few shelters that can stand up to 20 feet of floodwater and 150mph winds, and those few are too expensive for most people to buy and live in. I'm talking about people actually still in the city - if they're able-bodied and still in the city, they have no one to blame for their current life-threatening predicament but themselves.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[jlanthripp]

Again, see the other replies I have posted in this thread...

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[ckd]

Yeah, standing by the side of the highway, exhausted after a 12 hour walk, is a great way to face a hurricane.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[jlanthripp]

Slight correction to number 5. East Saint John High School is in Reserve, Louisiana, though it's only a few hundred yards west of the La Place city limits. Add another hour or 2 of walking time once you get to La Place, to reach ESJ HS. The upside to that is, it's further from Lake Pontchartrain than if it were on Airline Highway in La Place proper. There's also Destrehan High School, over in Saint Charles Parish, which is a few hours' walking time closer to New Orleans than East Saint John. However, it's also right next to the Mississippi River.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[jlanthripp]

Would you rather drown in toxic sludge? I've walked the route I described in my parent post, in the middle of the summer, wearing jeans and a black t-shirt. Yeah, I was tired, but again, getting tired beats the shit out of getting dead.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[Guppy06]

"It's 8 miles (give or take) from the Causeway Bridge to Chef Menteur Highway."

Nit-pick: The Causeway ends in Metairie, Jeff Parish. On the East Bank I can't remember where Jeff ends and Orleans begins, but I do know Causeway ain't it.

"A great majority of the people in New Orleans has feet and the ability to use them. Even getting to La Place, 25 miles west on either I-10 or Airline Highway, is better than sitting in New Orleans."

Uh... no. Assuming they would allow pedestrians on the interstate in an emergency, starting west of I-310 in St. Charles Parish and going well into St. John, I-10 is elevated over water, probably not the best stretch of road to be caught on when the storm starts coming.

Airline is even worse. For example, the Airline/I-310 exchange is notorious for being the first place in St. Charles to go underwater when it starts to rain, even though that's supposedly part of the hurricane evacuation route for St. Charles Parish. Closer Orleans, I hear Airline is closed and sandbagged over in order to suplement the levees there.

As for LaP lace itself, if Lake Pontchartrain has breached the levee in Orleans Parish, why do you believe the situation is any better for other parishes on the lake?

"the emergency services currently being used to airlift Boudreaux, Scioneaux and Arceneaux (yes, those are real names) off the roofs of their houses"

You forgot Thibodaux, or is he still waiting for the airlift? :)

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[wasted time]

I agree with most of what you said, especially your last statement. But your shortest statement is a bit misleading, although true according to official reports.

Most of the reported dead so far have been in MS, not LA. Many rescue workers have said they feel the number of dead they find drowned in their own homes is going to be staggering. Not to mention those who climbed into their attic and succumbed to heat exhaustion before breaking out. They have also reported all day that dead bodies were floating by and even being pushed aside as rescue workers concentrated on rescuing the visible survivors.

I'm afraid we're going to see some large fatality figures in NO before all is over.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[jlanthripp]

Okay, you got me on the first one - I've never known where Jefferson ends and Orleans begins. Never bothered to, since when you hit Kenner on I-10 from La Place, it's one solid metropolitan area all the way to the 510/Chalmette exit. Hell, the New Orleans International Airport is in Kenner, and it's block after block of city all the way from there to Chalmette. IMHO, the NO metro area includes Kenner, Metairie, Harahan, New Orleans, Chalmette, and Gentilly on the east (really north at that point) bank, and Waggaman, Bridge City, Westwego, Marrero, Harvey, and Gretna on the west (really south at that point) bank.

I also figure that the really bright ones would start walking sometime well *before* the storm hit and the floods began. A good time would be when the evacuation was announced. Airline highway has a shoulder all the way from La Place to David Drive/Hickory Avenue in Harahan, or did last time I was down there, making it (relatively) safe to walk on. From Harahan on in, there's sidewalks.

Sorry, I haven't been down there since they put 310 in from I-10 to Airline Highway, and didn't know they'd screwed it up too. I assume it goes all the way across to the Luling-Destrehan bridge and thus on to Highway 90 now? Did they ever fix the problem with holes developing in the roadway on that bridge? Did it even survive the storm?

La Place, at least the west end near ESJ HS, is further from the lake than New Orleans, and it's on higher ground. Plus, there's the Bonnet Carre Spillway between La Place and Norco to catch floodwater and a strip of swampy land between La Place and Lake Pontchartrain to act as a buffer (look to your left next time you go west on I-10 from Kenner - that's the swamp I'm talking about).

Looks like the phones are down in La Place, though - still can't get through to a friend of mine down there, assuming he's returned home from Jackson. "The number you have reached, 652-xxxx, is being checked for trouble."

Right now, New Orleans is probably the worst place to be, meaning that just about anywhere else is better - even La Place (yeah, hard to wrap your brain around that statement if you know the area, isn't it?)

Thibodeaux took his skiff across the lake to Covington before the storm hit and is now staying with his cousin Marcel Ledbetter in Liberty, MS :-P

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[justforaday]

I don't know how far you can walk in 36 hours, but I can guarantee it wouldn't have gotten you far enough...

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[ckd]

Now do that if you're tired, in your middle 40's and with 3 children under 10.

Carrying food, water, your medications, and a change of clothing.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[ckd]

From the NY Times (reg, etc):

Calvin Damond, 55, pushed a shopping cart through the rising waters on Poydras Street, loaded with two suitcases, cartons of Pampers and his 5-year-old grandson. As their home in the Upper Ninth Ward filled with water during the storm, Mr. Damond, his daughter, Katherine, and her three children climbed into the attic.
"We stayed there all night," Mr. Damond said. The water receded Tuesday morning, he said, and he carried the children out on his shoulders and toward the Superdome.

Bethaney Waithe, 57, made her way there, balancing a plaid plastic tote bag with a few survival items on her head. Ms. Waithe said she tried to persuade her roommate, Rohanda Randall, to leave their house on Tuesday as the water slowly crept up the sides. But Ms. Randall has trouble walking and refused to go.

Yeah, they should all have walked for 12 hours, and then entered the Boston Marathon next year.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[tgibbs]

Put yourself in the position of a lower-income family, perhaps a single parent with two or three kids, working a minimum wage job. Missing even a couple of days of work puts you in danger of being evicted from your apartment. Perhaps you evacuated for Ivan, which turned out to be a fizzle, and barely survived the financial hit. Don't you think that you might decide to bet that this one would miss, too?

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[drsquare]

Provide proper transportation and shelter?

What for? They had ample notice of the hurricane, and could have walked hundreds of miles away before it came. You don't need shelter in a warm climate.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[drsquare]

How exactly do you 'face' a hurricane? All you can do is hide underground somewhere. There's nowhere to hide in New Orleans you'd just drown. Better to walk 50 miles away, you'd avoid the floods and most of the hurricane.

Not that a 12 hour walk should exhaust anyone between the ages of 10 and 60, but how much energy exactly do you need to hide in a ditch?

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[jlanthripp]

Calvin Diamond could walk 6 miles, pushing a shopping cart loaded down with 2 suitcases and "cases" of diapers, and a 5-year old (and just when are they planning to potty-train that 5 year old anyway?), on flooded streets but can't walk 25 miles on flat dry paved roads with a change of clothes and a few bottles of water?

25 miles in 12 hours is a leisurely stroll. If the 99.5% of the population who can make that walk without even getting winded had done so, the remaining 0.5% would have been evacuated by helicopter or bus within 24 hours after the storm passed, if not before the storm arrived.

For that matter, since they were given 36 hours' notice, give 'em 24 hours to make the walk, and they'd still have time to sleep, shower, and be nice and fresh for the hurricane party at the high school gymnasium in St. John Parish. Any couch potato capable of getting from couch to fridge and back in the span of one commercial break during an episode of Chappelle's Show can cover 25 miles in 24 hours. That's 1.5 feet per second. My uncle, who's had 2 heart attacks and has had both legs amputated, can do better than that in his wheelchair.

Unfortunately, it looks like at least a few of those who chose to stay did so in anticipation of rich pickings in the Loot-A-Rama. If they can't keep up with an old man with no legs in a wheelchair, how is it they can outrun cops while carrying 15 pairs of Nikes and a gun?

There is a house

[grunby]

in New Orl...well I guess not any more.

Re:Martial Law: Shoot All Looters!

[zx-6e]

This wasn't even close to being funny...

Re:Leave it alone

[LWATCDR]

Gee no practical value. I guess the whole port thing is useless now that we no longer use ships. Oh and the oil and gas terminal is also useless now that we have Zero Point Modules at every WalMat
There are some real practical reasons for New Orleans to exist.
There are some things that can be done to reduce the impact of hurricanes like this. The biggest one is to restore the delta and the wet lands. The messing with the Mississippi caused a lot of this damage.
Building codes can also make a big difference. My home got hit by TWO hurricanes last year. I had no damage. Lots of older homes near me get a lot of damage.
BTW if we are going to condemn cities that are could be damaged by natural disasters lets start the list with most of California and let's face it New York is just a giant target for terrorists. How many Billions did 9/11 cost the US? Oh and Seattle is next to a chain of volcanoes.
Cities tend to be where they are for a reason. Lots of cities tend to be on rivers and the Ocean because water transportation is so useful. New Orleans would have done just fine with a CAT 2 or CAT 3 Getting hit by a CAT 4+ is a very rare event for anyone location.
Saying that these people should "just" move on is uncaring, mean, and stupid

Exceptions for B

[SuperKendall]

B) Don't live in a city that is 8 feet below sea level.

Oh, that's fine - as long as you choose the proper house.

Not "just like this one"

[A nonymous Coward]

... from big storms, just like this one

No denying that the North Atlantic can dish out some major storms, but they are not even close to hurricane status.

Re:Too much

[bobsacks]

ZING!

Re:Too much

[jjeff]

HAHAHAHA - thanks for that, I'm just glad I hadn't taken a sip of water before I read it! :-)

How many residents

[antifoidulus]

are just going to leave the city for good? Seriously, if it takes 2 months to get things back to something that even remotely resembles "normal" what are people going to do in the intervening time? Esp. considering that most children were looking to go back to school soon. My bet is that there will be a significant "brain drain" out of the city/state. Young educated people are going to find a job somewhere else and not look back. I wonder if that will be taken into account when the final tolls are reached....

Re:How many residents

[poofyhairguy82]

My bet is that there will be a significant "brain drain" out of the city/state. Young educated people are going to find a job somewhere else and not look back.

Well...the thing is...this has already been happening. I was born in N.O. and my family spent most of their lives there. But ever since the 80's N.O. has gone downhill...its traded its big port contracts for a bunch of drunk tourists. Already a brain drain was happening, and the economy was going downhill. This will just increase the effect....its so sad.

They will rebuild my hometown as some damn Las Vegas copy. Jump in head first with the vice and glamour to pay for all the damage. And all the decent folks will continue to move away. I miss my home state, but now it seems I might never be able to go back and make a decent living...

Re:How many residents

[Nogami_Saeko]

I think 2 months might be pretty optimistic...

Looking at the amount of damage to basic infrastructure, I'd guess it's going to be at least a month or two before power is even restored and roads are cleared to a small portion of the city, much less the entire city.

It's going to be 6 months to a year before vast parts of the city are even safe to live in again, much less return to normal life...

For all intents and purposes, they're building a city from scratch.

N.

Hilo, Hawaii learned, they moved.

[MDMurphy]

After getting hit with a tsunami that destroyed their waterfront (twice ), Hilo Hawaii learned their lesson. The wiped out area became a huge park and rebuilding went on higher up away from the sea.

New Orleans is a bit bigger than Hilo, but building in such a precarious area shouldn't be taken lightly. Even without a hurricane it's a continuous struggle to keep parts of it from flooding. Who should subsidise such an expensive city to maintain and repair?

It's one thing if the annual storms take out some resort property on outlying islands, but a busy city with so much area at risk really needs to step back and evaluate the cost.

Re:Hilo, Hawaii learned, they moved.

[CheeseTroll]

What would they call New Orleans if they rebuilt the city in a different location?

Re:Hilo, Hawaii learned, they moved.

[MDMurphy]

Newer Orleans

We have an extensive pumping system

[bersl2]

It's just that pumping near the critical levee breach of the 17th St. Canal @ Hammond Hwy. has failed, and so have efforts to plug this hole.

Uptown and Downtown have been the only places to avoid devastating flood waters. However, this failure is expected to dump 15 additional feet of water into the city.

Oh fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck...

pumps

[johnny cashed]

But has there been any significant technological innovations in water pumping since 1928? I could understand higher dikes (or levees) and more pumps, but if the 1928 pump still works, use it. Are there not pumps in the netherlands that are older and still in use?

Re:Leave it alone

[BenFranske]

I agree the river needs to be fixed, but that means allowing it to flood naturally which will still displace a lot of people who built on flood plain. Building on a flood plain is just a bad idea. Sooner or later you're bound to get wet.

Prior art

[quarkscat]

and definitely NIH, but use windmills to keep New Orleans dry. That, and some greater effort by the US Army Corp of Engineers regarding a system of dikes.

I'm not talking about the quaint 300 year old design windmill that appears on Dutch postcards. A design more like the vertical "mechanical sail" used by some modern ships can withstand far higher wind speeds than the old windmills.

Re:Prior art

[Axe]

That, and some greater effort by the US Army Corp of Engineers regarding a system of dikes.

Dikes on bikes....errr.. on TANKS!!

Re:Prior art

[DavidTC]

Morbo says, "Windmills do not work that way!"

Re:Prior art

[mrchaotica]

What? You mean windmills don't generate energy which could be used to run pumps? News to me!

Re:Prior art

[DavidTC]

Windmills do not operate in a hurricane, no. That would be extremely goofy.

Re:Prior art

[mrchaotica]

Surely you're joking. The defining feature of a hurricane is wind. Having windmills not operate when there's a lot of wind is what would be extremely goofy!

Just think about it: the time when the pumps need the most energy (to pump fast) coincides with the time when the windmills would produce the most energy. It's perfect!*

*assuming you design the windmills to withstand the hurricane, which could be done.

Re:Prior art

[AoT]

Yes, and sails are meant to be operated in the wind as well, but it is possible to have too much wind.

Re:Prior art

[Vintermann]

Read the wikipedia article on wind turbines, it's a very interesting read. It's not practical to build wind turbines that can operate at hurricane winds, it's hard enough to keep them standing at hurricance winds!

Re:Prior art

[mrchaotica]

You're right; that was an interesting read. However, I'm not convinced that you couldn't operate a wind turbine in a hurricane, if you carefully designed it to do so. You have to remember that we're just talking about running a few pumps, not powering the whole city, so we don't need a huge wind farm. A few relatively small, strong, and expensive turbines might actually be worth it, especially considering that other types of generators aren't as reliable under these conditions. For example, internal combustion generators can get flooded, and solar power obviously doesn't work in a storm.

How high is the water mamma?

[jotux]

Five feet high and rising...

Let's blame Congress

[i_like_spam]

Congress cut the fiscal year 2006 budget to the US Army Corps of Engineers in the New Orleans district by $71 Million, the largest single year cut ever.

Ironically, a study to determine the effects of a Cat 5 hurricane was also shelved.

Moreover, the New Orleans district imposed a hiring freeze back in June, the first time in 10 years.

Congress may be partially to blame for the failed pumps and the long clean-up time.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[walt-sjc]

Nah. Better blame the people who are pissed off that they are taxed too much.

I have a fundimental problem taxing people in North Dakota and Virginia to pay for protection for people who built homes below sea level.

We (all taxpayers) WILL be paying for all this now. It is going to cost us MANY billions to fix (although still a bargain compared to Iraq.)

Re:Let's blame Congress

[panaceaa]

Ironically, a study to determine the effects of a Cat 5 hurricane was also shelved

Seems like it wasn't needed after all. Now we know! Great work, Congress!

Re:Let's blame Congress

[smashin234]

2006 budget?

Aren't we still on the 2005 budget?

And how the heck would a study help for this storm when it probably would not have been finished until 2006 at the very least.

As for the hiring freeze, thats the only argument you can use, but still those people would still be inexperianced today.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[Overzeetop]

Screw that. I could have told you that a major hurricane would flood the city, the pumps would fail, and you'd have the world's biggest swimming pool with underwater bars. And I could have written the report for a fraction of the $71M planned.

They should have given me the contract for a mere $7 million and saved the rest.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[shawb]

You think we're only going to be paying for this as taxpayers? A significant amount of our fuel refinery capacity is in New Orleans. Just wait till you have to fill your tank or pay your heating/electric bill. Or purchase goods that have been shipped to the store. Compared to our already waning fuel supply... this is gonna be fun. Might be time to break out my bicycle to get to work (92 Caprice station wagons don't get the best gas mileage in the world.)

Re:Let's blame Congress

[frankie]

taxing people in North Dakota and Virginia to pay for protection for people who built homes below sea level.

Funny that you should pick North Dakota as your first example. For every dollar that those badlands leeches pay in income taxes, they get back about TWO dollars in federal largesse.

Care to know which states really deserve to complain about their tax dollars being handed out to others? That would be Wisconsin, Delaware, New York, California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, Nevada, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and the most robbed of all, New Jersey.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[tillemetry]

Read the facts.

Then mod parent WAAAAY up.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt the residents of Connecticut or New Jersey would want their states full of nuclear missle silos.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[q-the-impaler]

I don't have a problem funding the emergency relief, or subsidizing the state to rebuild infrastructure like roads, power, and telecomms, but it really bugs me when the federal government gives relief to people to rebuild in the same spot that got demolished.

I live in Florida and had some damage to my house. Guess what? After I paid my deductible, the insurance company forked over the rest. Now my premium has doubled and I am spreading out the cost of my own repairs. I don't like having my tax dollars pay for what the homeowners should be paying in insurance. If you can't afford it, live somewhere safer.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[Halfbaked Plan]

Ironically, a study to determine the effects of a Cat 5 hurricane was also shelved.

That would have been wasted money. Now they don't have to 'study' it, they can just look at footage.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[LothDaddy]

As a resident of South Dakota I initially agreed with your point. However, if we ended up having a monster snow storm (which we are probably due), it'd be nice to have Federal assistance available if necessary.

I do feel that now such an event has occurred there, the money should be used to move the population, not rebuild and wait for the next cat 5 hurricane.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[Junior J. Junior III]

No need to do the study anymore, they KNOW the results of a Category 5 hurricane now.

Probably don't need to pay Engineers to work on New Orleans anymore, either, considering that the city is gone.

Forget about the past. Don't rebuild. Relocate.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[Peyna]

As soon as you live in an area with a 0% chance of needing FEMA aid anytime in the future, you can exempt yourself from these payments.

I imagine there are a limited number of places in the United States where this is true.

Besides, you have to pretty naive to think that knocking out the entire economy of a large port city for several weeks/months won't impact you. It benefits us all to help these people back on their feet.

Unless you actually like seeing unemployment skyrocket.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[aminorex]

The blue states giveth, the red states taketh away.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[Scudsucker]

Better blame the people who are pissed off that they are taxed too much.

I blame the people who are so self-centered that they can't see past their own noses.

I have a fundimental problem taxing people in North Dakota and Virginia to pay for protection for people who built homes below sea level.

Well I live in North Dakota, and I am glad people living in Virginia and Louisiana paid their taxes when the flood of 1997 wiped out much of Grand Forks.

Ya see, that's the point. There is no place you can be free from natual disasters, so quit whining about having to pay for them.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[Scudsucker]

but it really bugs me when the federal government gives relief to people to rebuild in the same spot that got demolished.

It really bugs me when people say this when FEMA tries to avoid this. Check other threads; people have mentioned other floods where the gvt has bought out the land and turned it into parks rather than rebuild the lost housing.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[magarity]

the effects of a Cat 5 hurricane was also shelved ... Seems like it wasn't needed after all. Now we know!
 
No, we don't. Katrina hit shore as a category 4 and the East side of the eye wall missed New Orleans proper by a relatively wide margin. Although it's safe to speculate that the entire roof would have ripped off the Superdome since it lost a lot of shingles and leaked pretty bad in just the West side of a Cat 4. Then the casualty rates would be in the high thousands if not over 10 thousand instead of just the hundreds. But that's still speculation on my part.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[Scudsucker]

Care to know which states really deserve to complain about their tax dollars being handed out to others? That would be Wisconsin, Delaware, New York, California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, Nevada, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and the most robbed of all, New Jersey.

Yup, and for another funny statistic, the states with the highest divorce rates are red. Whoo hoo!

Re:Let's blame Congress

[FireBreathingDog]

Ironically, a study to determine the effects of a Cat 5 hurricane was also shelved.

Not to be too grim, but they probably don't need that study anymore...

Re:Let's blame Congress

[lgw]

Unless you mean food. Or steel. Or coal. Or almost any heavy industry. Some things are only valuable if you're missing them ...

Re:Let's blame Congress

[lgw]

It still pisses me off to see my tax dollars go to people who built below sea level and had no flood insurance. Beyond that, you can't really argue with the benefits of the relief effort. New Orleans deserves the same charity we'd give to any other third world disaster area, after all.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[dubious9]

Ok smartass... where do you put pumps where they would be most effective? Is damage directly and linearly based upon altitude? Which sections of the city, down to the street and block level would get hit the hardest? How do you distribute emergency responce based on the which sections get hit, and who is likely to still be there riding out 'canes and what critical assests are in those regions? Depending on likely damage, in which order and at what locations do you restore utilities?

How high would levys and other water blocking measures have to be raised considering storms of varying strength approaching the city from various directions? By what amount are current pumps insufficient. Under which cicumstances and locations will emerygency personel not be able to do their jobs and how will that effect emergency management in surrounding areas?

Not all studies are naive and useless.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[PablitoRun]

This is really an artifcat caused by the fact that the vast majority of the "super-rich" and corporations reside in these states. If you only look at inflows and outflows for specific income brackets the parents snarky point doesn't stand up as well.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[ugmoe]

You left out the section on their creative solution to the budget cut!

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4200/i s_20050606/ai_n14657367

Stephen Jeselink, interim commander of the New Orleans Corps district, told employees in an internal e-mail dated May 25 that the district is experiencing financial challenges. Execution of our available funds must be dealt with through prudent districtwide management decisions. In addition to a hiring freeze, Jeselink canceled the annual Corps picnic held every June.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[Scuff]

you want more funny statistics?

average IQ by state

Re:Let's blame Congress

[cjsnell]

I have a fundimental problem taxing people in North Dakota and Virginia to pay for protection for people who built homes below sea level.


Yeah, why should North Dakotans pay! They know better than to build houses in places that flood!

Re:Let's blame Congress

[necrognome]

Feel free to return to me the tax money that I send to DC to subsidize your existence (I am, of course, assuming that you live in a state that is a net leecher of federal taxes; I live in New York City). I would rather have my money spent on needy folks in Louisiana and Mississippi than selfish crap like you. If you think my comments are harsh, trade spots with someone in the path of Katrina. Helping these folks out is not only the right move economically (do you want a recession?), but also the right thing to do.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[Planesdragon]

Unless you mean food. Or steel. Or coal. Or almost any heavy industry...

1: Coal is already in the ground, you nitwit.

2: Every single state in the Union takes in food. Not all of the wide variety that we enjoy, but there simply isn't a state without ANY agriculture--and, conversely, you can likely find food from any state in your local community in you look hard enough.

3: Most Heavy Industry is located thanks in large part to government largese. Battleships, space ships, and fighter planes drive far more indusry than any ten greedy profit motives you can come up with.

4: The proper response to a Red State / Blue State fallacy is "we're a purple nation." Even Texas, Utah, and MA had distinct spurs of "opposition" in the 2004 Presidential Election.

And when you look at those "red state / blue state" maps on a county or city level, especially if you weight them by actual vote and not just electoral gamesmanship, the moronic fallacy just falls away.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[Doppler00]

Ironically, a study to determine the effects of a Cat 5 hurricane was also shelved.

Yeah, that's because they recently started putting their efforts into studying the Cat 5e hurricanes that support Giga Storm wind speeds.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[ccmay]

Hey, those states are full of liberals who routinely vote for income redistribution schemes. Well, these statistics show they've got what they asked for. Wealthy blue states are ponying up big dollars to poorer places out here in Jesusland.

Rich liberals shouldn't talk the talk if they can't walk the walk.

-ccm

Re:Let's blame Congress

[bhiestand]

As much as I dislike liberals overall, I'd say George W Bush is the new King of Wealth Redistribution.

He hasn't exactly made government smaller, has he?

Re:Let's blame Congress

[dfghjk]

How is that an "artifact"? In order for someone to receive a benefit they don't pay for, someone else has to pay and receive nothing. Those would be the rich, not the poor people in North Dakota.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[ifwm]

If the citizens of New Orleans choose to live there, then things like this should be state priorities, not federal ones.

If they really thought they needed it, they would have found the funding.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[1zenerdiode]

Of course, an earlier poster remarked how evil the corps of engineers' efforts were to control the Missisippi.

More seriously, I can see why they would cut the budget - it might have had a budgetary impact on Boston's efforts to bury their interstate system.

There are interests on both sides of the aisle that led to decisions not to shore up (no pun intended) New Orleans' infrastructure.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[floormasn56]

Because the blue states are where the RICH are. Remember TAX THE RICH!!!! Isn't that the liberal foundation for everything?

Re:Let's blame Congress

[archen]

"Per dollar of Federal tax collected in 2002, North Dakota citizens received approximately $2.07 in the way of federal spending. "

Sounds terrible right? Try living in California on $25k per year. In ND you can do okay with that. Now look at the federal tax on income (standard across all states). You get more tax breaks the less money you make. People in ND get so many tax breaks because the cost of living is low, and there is a low population density. For reference If you took a dallar from everyone in ND you could buy ONE decent house in LA.

I grew up in ND and generally I figured that you pay into federal taxes and it's the government that decides what to do with it. I mean they could pay the corps of engineers to screw with lake Sakakawea or give it to Florida during a hurricane, it's all the same to me. I think the states need to be less concerned about State money going to other states, and more concerned with State money going to stuff like the war in Iraq for which we see NO return.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[lgw]

Yes, it is a silly concept to begin with, but it's worth remembering that economic value of work corresponds only loosely with genuine importance - something Slashdotters too often forget. I take pride in being a geek, and a good coder, but fundamentally farming, mining, and the like are far more necessary.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[Guysmiley777]

Don't be ignorant. Shingles? The Superdome's roof is reinforced concrete, it would take a nuclear blast to "rip it off".

What came off, and what the media was having an orgasm over was the rubberized waterproof membrane.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[RealAlaskan]

Ironically, a study to determine the effects of a Cat 5 hurricane was also shelved.

An unusual act of wisdom. Wasn't Katrina a Cat 5 [1] hurricane? We don't need no steek'n study: we've got the real thing.

[1] A cat 5 hurricane is a multipair (usually 4 pair) high performance hurricane, capable of carrying data at up to 100Mbps.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[swelke]

That's a nice, well thought out comment you've got there. Too bad the badlands are in South Dakota. Dumbass.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[Lost Race]

Am I the only one who has a hard time remembering which party is red and which party is blue? The colors are hardly intuitive and the only mnemonic I've come up with is that all the letters of "blue" are in "republican" and all the letters of "red" are in "democrat". I wish people would stop using the terms "red state" and "blue state" as the assignments of color to party are purely arbitrary and transient, and are scheduled to switch in 2008 as they did in 2000. (The rule is: alternating colors are assigned to the incumbent party each presidential election. In 1992 and 1996 it so happened that "red" meant "Democrat". According to the rule, that will also be the case in 2008, so we'll have to come up with a new mnemonic.)

Re:Let's blame Congress

[magarity]

"We think the wind somehow got into the vents and got between the roof's (waterproof) membrane and the aluminum ceiling tiles," said Doug Thornton, regional manager of the company that manages the huge arena.
 
"Tiles" and "shingles" are reasonably interchangeable to mean "roofing peices" which should be obviously what I meant. WTF do you get a concrete roof that wide??? Concrete does not hold up well over wide unsupported expanses.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[Guysmiley777]

Except when its in a pre-stressed arch shape. At the college I graduated from the mechanical engineering students had a competition to build concrete canoes. Great stuff, if engineered properly.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[q-the-impaler]

But it happens. There was a story about it in our local newspaper here in Melbourne, FL (Florida Today -- gave up looking for it). So it continues to really bug me.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[magarity]

Did they also teach you that concrete can be made watertight with no need for a weather cover? See: material used to make major dams.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[Guysmiley777]

See also: Watertight integrity of seams in concrete slabs and asthetic appeal of giant bare concrete dome.

This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes?

[FunWithHeadlines]

Folks, think about what it would be like to be forced from your home and told not to come back for a month, knowing that all that time your house is partially underwater, and fairly toxic water at that. Think about the suffering that must be going on at this very minute by people who were unable to evacuate, and now find themselves unable to even walk out of the city. Think about the tens of thousands of people stuck in the Superdome who have been without air conditioning, most power, in stifling heat and dark, with little notion of when they will ever be able to return to their homes, or even if they have homes any more. Think about those who are crippled, or sick, or elderly, and who are stuck in this slow-motion disaster.

Think about the fact that a major U.S. city that many people love is slowly being destroyed almost completely. Think about how when all is said and done probably thousands of people will be dead from this. Think about how a husband feels knowing his wife is dead, or a wife feels seeing her husband die, or a parent who sees a child sicken and die.

Think I'm being overly dramatic? Think again. This is going to wind up being the worst natural disaster in U.S. history, and what I'm seeing on /. are jokes? I know the usual flippant response is 'hey dude, this is a valid response to tragedy.' Yeah, I understand that, but man, people are actively dying right now. How about just a tad more respect at this very moment, and then make your jokes? Why not wait to see the full impact of this disaster before you reflexively respond with sarcasm and wit? Please.

Terrorism

[Darchenman]

The Bush Administration is now following a lead that might link the terrorist group Mother Nature to Hurricane Katrina.

As the second largest net producer of CO2...

[distantbody]

...i am of the opinion that the United States of America is more than just an innocent victim.

a non WMP only link would have been nice

[Col_Panic]

Would have been nice to have selected a news source that didn't require WMP to see video. Yeah, I'm bitching, but, with a zillion articles on the events out there, would have been nice to have thought of the needs of many of your SD audience.

Re:a non WMP only link would have been nice

[binford2k]

mplayer, bud.

Not a global warming issue.

[LWATCDR]

These storms are part of a natural Hurricane cycle. These cycles have been seen going back centuries. Not really a case of Karma. If so wouldn't it have been more far for a massive hurricane to have hit California and New York where lots if this oil and gas is burned?
These poor people need help just a bunch of morons judging them and making stupid comments.

Re:Not a global warming issue.

[demachina]

"These storms are part of a natural Hurricane cycle. These cycles have been seen going back centuries"

Don't think 90 degree water surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico are normal, even cyclically though I'd be curious if anyone can point me to a historical record of Gulf water temperatures.

"If so wouldn't it have been more far for a massive hurricane to have hit California and New York where lots if this oil and gas is burned?"

America's oil, coal and car companies are far more to blame for the situation we are in than individual Americans. They are like crack dealers who've gotten extraordinarily wealthy pushing cheap gasoline and fuel guzzling cars first on Americans and now the world, most recently China and India. They are also guilty, at every turn, of suppressing development of alternative energy and transportation mechanisms.

You don't have to look much further than who is going to be doing the most profiteering on the disaster that is Katrina. Gasoline prices are jumping 10-15 cents this week. Exxon Mobile, Conoco, Shell and BP all garnered record profits last quarter and will probably set records this quarter. Why aren't you indignant about the extent they, and speculators, are profiteering on this disaster. Its about as bad as price gouging by people selling water and generators in the disaster region. There are some people getting mighty rich who helped create a world dependent on fossil fuels and are now exploiting the dependence they are creating and doing things like creating artificial shortage of refining capacity to insure inflated prices for their products.

All in all there is just some massive bad karma there and most of it is eminating from the states of Texas and Louisiana. Certainly it is unfortunate a lot of innocent people got caught in the middle of it, but there is a natural balance in the world, if you do something wrong continuously for long periods, and our fossil fuel economy is clearly wrong, you eventually have to pay a price for it. The fossil fuel industry and the Bush administration rather than trying to move away from it are in denial that its a problem and just trying to propagate our complete dependence on fossil fuels, are waging wars for control of it, and profiting mightily from the current scarcity. I saw in the news a couple days ago a civil servant with the Army Corps of Engineers who testified before Congress recently about the blatant impropriety of the sole source, five year contract given to Halliburton to develop Iraq's oil fields was demoted and transfered by Cheney, Rumsfeld and friends, for stating the obvious fact, the people in the Bush administration are profiteering on the Iraq war and control of Iraq's oil fields. Again there is some really bad karma there.

People can't just keep doing something wrong indefinitely and never face the music. You would hope a disaster on the scale of Katrina will wake people up and will break the world out of its fossil fuel death spiral. If it doesn't you run the risk of letting it run for another 50 years and maybe do real and irreversible damage, both economic and environmental, damage far worse than you see today in the South.

Re:Not a global warming issue.

[donny77]

Don't think 90 degree water surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico are normal, even cyclically though I'd be curious if anyone can point me to a historical record of Gulf water temperatures.

We only have "accurate" weather data going back less than 100 years. What does this prove? That we know absolutely nothing about weather.

What I do know, is that the Earth has had several ice ages. I know that the ice melted. I know that there was no mankind with their internal combustion engines and freon when the ice melted... So what do we know about "global warming"?

Re:Not a global warming issue.

[kooshvt]

Don't think 90 degree water surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico are normal, even cyclically though I'd be curious if anyone can point me to a historical record of Gulf water temperatures.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/egof.html
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/wtg12.html

Mid to upper 80's averages.

Re:Not a global warming issue.

[demachina]

Thats almost the data I'd like to see, you just wish they had more current temperature readings and more data from buoys out in the middle where the hurricane's build. Only thing I could garner was that the few current reports in the West Gulf near Texas seem to be running higher than the average, in the 90 degree range, and the few near Florida reporting are more on average. Wish they had graphs for all the historical data collected from the buoys along with where they are located.

Of course then to many of the stations in the Gulf might have been taken out by Katrina.

Re:Not a global warming issue.

[LWATCDR]

You are just nuts. First of all Karma crap. But if Karma was real lets look at the facts.
The oil companies are mostly unhurt.
The poor are the one ones that got hurt the most and benefited from the oil the least.
Oil companies only sell what people buy. I have been in California and I see more cars, BIG SUVS, and less public transportation than anyplace I have ever been.
And Karma had better be crap because siting around with our AC running, using power to run a computer, and saying that these poor people somehow where asking for it seems to be too be inviting a huge karma backlash. A better thing would be to ask what can we do to help.

Re:Not a global warming issue.

[SashaMan]

Au contraire. A good study from MIT about how hurricane wind speeds are 50% stronger in the past 3 decades, partially due to global warming (although I realize there is a 50% chance this study is false):

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/hurricanes.html

Re:Not a global warming issue.

[demachina]

"Oil companies only sell what people buy. "

That is completely nuts. Oil companies, in particular Standard Oil created the fossil fuel economy, hand in hand with Ford and GM, who marketed it and suckered Americans in to buying in to it. It's created horrible urban environments like the ones in California, and nearly ever urban, suburban nightmare in the U.S. which make it nearly impossible to exist without owning a car. It created massive expanses of concrete where pedestrians are an endangered species and mass transit largely non existent. Most American cities have turned in hell holes where no one wants to live surrounded by a massive suburban sprawl. Ironically the quality of life in such an environment is horrible but people do it anyway. No one in their right mind would spend 2-4 hours a day commuting on traffic clogged and polluted freeways. I'll take life in the country or in a real city with subways, and corner markets you walk to any day. The karma of the American life style is nearly all bad and it will be world killing and unsustainable as the billions of people in China and India start buying in to it which they are.

Everything Americans do is driven by nonstop advertising and marketing campaigns. Most cars are a truly horrible place to invest money because, with a few exceptions, their value craters in a few years and the marketing machine starts telling you to mortgage your soul to buy a new one though its a horrible investment.

The oil companies have year after year artificially inflated gasoline prices to pad their profit margins, and then dropped prices just as the backlash develops. Chances are it will go that way this time too. Oil companies simply can't let prices stay at current levels indefinitely because everyone will start flocking to alternatives to their product. They might let it stay high just long enough for people to start investing in alternatives, then drop prices and put all those alternatives out of business so investors in them get doubly burned. Oil companies have for 100 years done nothing but manipulate America and the world.

"our AC running"

Air conditioning karma is just as bad. Its led to mass migrations in to places where people shouldn't be living like the Southwestern deserts and the deep south. AC is why so many people are living in the path of devastating Hurricanes in the South and in the deserts without enough water in the Southwest. Florida was not a place you wanted to live before AC. AC fueled the massive growth in coal fired power plants which is one of the worst parts of the fossil fuel karma.

Computers I wouldn't judge so harshly. Its enabled communication and learning on an unprecedented scale. It give people something to do besides drive around in cars or vegetate passively in front of the TV. They have a down side but their karma is at least a wash.

"and saying that these poor people somehow where asking for it"

The poor people were unfortunate victims but a big chunk of the Louisiana economy, and the people living there are completely intertwined with and dependent on the fossil fuel economy. You can't drive far in Louisiana without smelling the stench of refineries.

Re:Not a global warming issue.

[demachina]

Another great example of bad karma in play, I'll go nuts if hear the Katrina news coverage comment another hundred times about the fact that Mississippi is losing $500,000 a day because their gambling barges are all wrecked. like that counts for anything in the middle of a disaster zone. There is another completely bad karma industry, one designed to drain money out of the pockets of people to ignorant to realize that gambling is a carefully designed strategy for states governments and corporations to separate them from their hard earned money in exchange for exactly nothing.

Re:Not a global warming issue.

[evanbd]

The Earth is getting warmer; that is unarguably clear from numerous sources of evidence. It really doesn't matter whether it's our fault or not -- it's our problem. We've built our civilization around the current climate, and will be in trouble if it changes dramatically. So, it is well worth considering ways to reduce rates of climate change, no matter what the original source is. Do you really think that NYC cares what the reason is if the antarctic ice cap melts?

Re:Not a global warming issue.

[LoveTheIRS]

California refines it's own gasoline. It uses a different cocktail of gasoline than the rest of the country. But natural gas, etc you got me there.

Re:Not a global warming issue.

[CFTM]

To add to your comment, California can only use sweet crude which only comes from the middle east. We [California] don't use the sour crude which comes down the Alaskan pipeline or off the coasts; the rest of the country is able to use this stuff. My understanding is that the sweet crude is less toxic; I guess we make up for it by using more of it in our god damn SUV's.

Re:Not a global warming issue.

[LWATCDR]

So on top of "karma" you also believe that everybody but you is manipulated be advertising. No one forces people to buy big cars. People buy big cars because the are comfortable and more useful. If nothing else the higher cost of fuel will push people to buy smaller cars.
1. Global warming had NOTHING to do with this hurricane cycle. Anyone that says that it is is preaching from blind faith even more than creation science believers.
Since you feel that you are the all seeing and universal judge I suggest that you drop the karma trip and ponder this. "Judge not unless you are willing to be judged."

Re:Not a global warming issue.

[LWATCDR]

That doesn't really fit the data. Katrina is now number 3 on the list but you will notice that most of the really strong storms where around 1900-1935 Which was one of the high cycles. Then from around 1935 to 1960 was a lull in in storms. 1960-69 got a little busy but then nothing really until 1995 which seems to be the cycle we are in now. It could be that he is seeing part of this cycle as a result of global warming.
1. Florida Keys, 1935, 892 millibars, 26.35 inches
2. Camille, 1969, 909 millibars, 26.84 inches
3. Andrew, 1992, 922 millibars, 27.23 inches
4. Florida Keys and Texas, 1919, 927 millibars, 27.37 inches
5. Lake Okeechobee, 1928, 929 millibars, 27.43 inches
6. Donna, 1960, 930 millibars, 27.46 inches
7. Galveston, 1900, 931 millibars, 27.49 inches
7. Grand Isle, 1909, 931 millibars, 27.49 inches
7. New Orleans, 1915, 931 millibars, 27.49 inches
7. Carla, 1961, 931 millibars, 27.49 inches

Scientific American, October 2001

[ghenne]

http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenam eCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse& interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=1353CDCA -AF4D-4B1D-85F4-5B68F2A7E17&ARTICLEID_CHAR=D58B96E 1-60BC-4C0F-BCE2-8C9B8A05275&sc=I100322

"New Orleans is a disaster waiting to happen. The city lies below sea level, in a bowl bordered by levees that fend off Lake Pontchartrain to the north and the Mississippi River to the south and west...

Re:What can be done about it?

[fabs64]

wow... Ignorance +1
I'm not from America and even I know New Orleans has been suffering floods and storms since... well, forever.
NOT just since the "effects" of global warming appeared.

Re:WTF?

[geekoid]

technically, this isn't a tech sight, it's a nerd sight.

Not that this doesn't qualify as news for this sight.

Now, you wan't top discuss the terrible return policy of pet shops that sell dead parrots, Whine about Geaorge Lucas and wonder what a petrified natilie portman would look like as she poors hot grits. you're in the right place.

Without wishing to sound callous....

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we limit the economic incentive to rebuild such a large city in such a blatently absurd geographic area?

After every major hurricane we see federal disaster relief helping to rebuild the are hit. Why not make the relief contingent on rebuilding outside of that area, or building structures that are far more resilient to hurricane damage?

As it is, the disaster relief limits the ability of the free market economy to control risk - insurance companies won't insure for flooding in New Orleans for a good reason. Why should taxpayers bail out residents in disaster-prone areas time and time again? Mother Nature always wins in the end. But I predict that we'll see massive rebuilding and an increase in the size of the levees, and New Orleans will rebound...until the next time. Maybe 150 years time, or 300. Or maybe not that long. That we don't know, but New Orleans will still be below sea level either way. Think that evacuating ~1 million people is bad enough? What will the population there be in 150 years time?

Look at Galveston, TX. In 1900 the island city was enjoying a huge economic boom. People didn't want to believe that anything could happen to the city so when a major hurricane hit the city got obliterated. ~3600 homes destroyed and between 10,000 and 12,000 deaths. They rebuilt, and raised much of the city from a lowly 9 feet above sea level, some by a whopping 11 feet. Woohoo.

My heart goes out to those who have lost homes, belongings, pets and family.

Re:Without wishing to sound callous....

[DerekLyons]

How about we limit the economic incentive to rebuild such a large city in such a blatently absurd geographic area?

[slaps forhead] *Of course* - let's move a major port to where it can no longer function as a port.

Did it never occur to you that there's some pretty serious economic incentives to make them build in such a crappy place to begin with?

Haven't known it

[rwade]

The city was a creation of the French before the nation even existed. The city was there way before quality knowledge of the effects of hurricane given the now obvious geographical factors.

Re:Please

[The Bungi]

Won't somebody make a contribution to the stupidity relief fund?

Do you have a PayPal account?

Re:Leave it alone

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

New Orleans would have done just fine with a CAT 2 or CAT 3 Getting hit by a CAT 4+ is a very rare event for anyone location.

Dude. Hurricanes. Not network cable. No need to uppercase CAT.

Re:How about

[fabs64]

New Orleans,
is on a floodplain (basically)
it has been being hit by storms, flooded, wtf ever, for well over a hundred years.

Leave the ignorance to the Americans, please :-P

Re:Leave it alone

[mkoz]

Define "rare event"... I suspect that you (and most people think about your life time), but cities should be built with longer timescales in mind.

At somepoint many developed areas will either be abandonded as urban areas (due to lack of water as much as too much water), or we shall spend vast sums of money to inhabit areas that are "suboptimal"... people are very bad at actually evaluating "rare events"...

Yeah, but most of those cities were small

[rdunnell]

Valmeyer, IL was one of them. Yes, it relocated, but let's be fair. It was a small city of a few thousand people at most. It had no major structures, no huge downtown business area, etc. It was not very difficult to relocate a lot of the flooded areas that wanted to, because they were very small and already in rural areas with abundant land nearby.

You can't really compare a city of half a million people with a 200 year or more history to a small farm community when it comes to relocation.

Re:Too much

[pdehn]

With the current shortage of it, prices should go up. Economics 101...pff

Re:Global Warming = stronger hurricanes, so....

[bizitch]

To quote Rich Lowrey @NRO

If cable TV had existed in 1886, everyone in the U.S. might have been whipped into a hurricane panic. A record seven hurricanes made landfall that year, including a Category 4 storm that hit Texas and would have had on-the-spot cable newscasters dramatically fighting the wind to deliver their reports. All during the 1890s, reporters could have done the same along the Atlantic seaboard, as it was hammered by more powerful hurricanes than it would be in any decade except the 1950s.

Hurricane Katrina, which slammed the Gulf Coast and got eyewall-to-eyewall media coverage, is sure to increase the sense that there is an epidemic of hurricanes (along, of course, with an epidemic of shark attacks and missing blond girls). Which inevitably raises the question: "What can we do about it?" For some scientists and activists -- working on the assumption that anything they don't like must be caused by industrial emissions -- the answer is stop global warming.

There is hardly an undesirable natural event, from wildfires to hurricanes, that former Vice President Al Gore hasn't blamed on global warming. As if it weren't for fossil-fuel emissions, the weather would always be predictable and pleasant. An outfit called Scientists and Engineers for Change put up a billboard in Florida before last year's presidential election stating it starkly: "Global warming = Worse hurricanes. George Bush just doesn't get it." Ah, yes: Why are Bush and the neocons focused on the war in Iraq, when there is a very real threat to the U.S. they should be addressing in the waters of the Atlantic?

Has global warming increased the frequency of hurricanes? One of the nation's foremost hurricane experts, William Gray, points out that if global warming is at work, cyclones should be increasing not just in the Atlantic but elsewhere, in the West Pacific, East Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. They aren't. The number of cyclones per year worldwide fluctuates pretty steadily between 80 and 100. There's actually been a small overall decline in tropical cyclones since 1995, and Atlantic hurricanes declined from 1970 to 1994, even as the globe was heating up.

It seems that Atlantic hurricanes come in spurts, or as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration puts it in more technical language, "a quasi-cyclic multi-decade regime that alternates between active and quiet phases." The late 1920s through the 1960s were active; the 1970s to early 1990s quiet; and since 1995 -- as anyone living in Florida or Gulfport, Miss., can tell you -- seems to be another active phase.

But if hurricanes aren't more frequent, are they more powerful? Warm water fuels hurricanes, so the theory is that as the ocean's surface heats up, hurricanes will pack more punch. An article in Nature -- after questionable jiggering with the historical wind data -- argues that hurricanes have doubled in strength because of global warming. Climatologist Patrick Michaels counters that if hurricanes had doubled in their power it would be obvious to everyone and there would be no need to write controversial papers about it.

Indeed, if you adjust for population growth and skyrocketing property values, hurricanes don't appear to be any more destructive today. According to the work of Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, of the top five most destructive storms this century, only one occurred after 1950 -- Hurricane Andrew in 1992. An NOAA analysis says there have been fewer Category 4 storms throughout the past 35 years than would have been expected given 20th-century averages.

None of this data matters particularly, since proponents of global warming will continue to link warming with hurricanes. It generates headlines in a way that debates about tiny increments of warming don't. And it feeds a conceit that is oddly comforting: that whatever is wrong with the world is caused by us and fixable by us. Alas, it's not so. Mother Nature can be a cruel and unpredictable mistress, and sometimes all we can do is head for the high ground.

Re:Leave it alone

[quantum bit]

Whaaa... when did Wal-Mart start carring ZPMs?

And here I've been buying naquadria at Costco every month. How much could I have saved if I'd just picked up a ZPM that would last 3,000 years? Well, the ones at Wal-Mart will probably only last 300, but still...

Thank you, FunWIthHeadlines.....

[Arren]

For the rare reminder that humanity still exists amongst its callous namesakes.

French

[pellik]

Some 203 years after the fact it finally looks like the french might have made the right choice selling off Louisiana. If only they had taken that lame accent with them when they left.

Re:prevention

[outlineblue]

in this case, it would be: stop building cities BELOW sea level dammit!

a very uninsightful comment

[toupsie]

There are over 8,000 National Guard members already in southern Louisiana with other states pitching in help. Not to mention the assets from the Navy and the Coast Guard that are already on the scene. Instead of focusing in on a political angle to hang your hat on, take some of the self absorbed, righteous indignation and channel to something that can actually help those affected by this natural disaster by contributing to the Red Cross or show us all how much of a wonderful, caring human being and go to Louisiana or Mississippi to pitch in.

Your figures are a little off...

[jcr]

Wikipedia says the Zuiderzee Works cost $710 million in 2004 dollars. A trillion and a half would be the entire GNP of the Netherlands for a bit more than three years.

-jcr

Re:Your figures are a little off...

[Freexe]

After doing some of my own research it looks like some of the facts might have been wrong.

I have to say, i feel alittle disappointed in the Guardian right now.

Re:Your figures are a little off...

[konkani]

The original Guardian story claims it cost 1.5 Trillion British pounds!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv_and_radio/story/0,,15 58354,00.html

Re:Your figures are a little off...

[vinlud]

I'm Dutch, and considering the 1,5 trillion pounds is spread over _50_ years i think this is quite good estimate, the Zuiderzee works are only a small part of our total infrastructure against flooding.

Re:Your figures are a little off...

[san]

The Zuiderzee works are only a small part of the 'wall' around the Netherlands. It was created to make that wall a good bit shorter, like the Delta Works.

Given that the oldest wall-shaped water defenses date from around 200BC, and that the making of new dry land in the form of polders involved massive private ventures in the 17th and 18th centuries and were undertaken as big New Deal-like projects in the early 20th century, the real figure may still be pretty big.

Re:Your figures are a little off...

[nettdata]

You know, there's only two things I can't stand... intolerance, and the Dutch.

*ducks*

Obligatory Aliens Quote

[sysadmn]

Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Obligatory Aliens Quote

[mihalis]

As I recall it's "take off and nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure"

America "chernobyl". Just walk away

[DigiShaman]

I say we just abandon New Orleans if the damage is too extensive to rebuild. Basically, call it Americas "chernobyl" and move on. Ya, there are fond memories in that city...but sometimes it's best to not fight nature. Just leave it be. But up a memorial, rebuild refineries in other areas...but slowly, just walk away from it.

I doubt this will happen, but it would be better in the long run then supporting a city BELOW see level.

Re:America "chernobyl". Just walk away

[Skinny Rav]

I say we just abandon New Orleans if the damage is too extensive to rebuild. Just leave it be. I doubt this will happen, but it would be better in the long run then supporting a city BELOW sea level.

Tell this to Dutch people. No doubt they will be delighted. How would it go? "I doubt this will happen, but it would be better in the long run then supporting a country BELOW sea level."

There are many places around the world below the sea level and quite densily populated. If the sea level rises probably they will have to be abandoned, but most probably not without an enormous effort before to prevent them from being taken by the sea.

Raf

Disclaimer: OK, I know that not the whole Netherlands are below the sea level, just exaggerated a bit for the sake of interesting discussion ;-)

Re:America "chernobyl". Just walk away

[bazzman]

Tell this to Dutch people. No doubt they will be delighted.

Well actually the Dutch are planning to leave behind some areas that are too likely to be fluded by rivers and lakes. Over the next 20-30 years quite some populated areas will be "given back" to rivers because it is part of their natural path. There was a documentary about these plans earlier this year. (Can't remember which channel).

Re:America "chernobyl". Just walk away

[ch-chuck]

Basically, call it Americas "chernobyl"

How about call it Americas' "Atlantis".

Re:WTF?

[The Bungi]

This is just a preview of the next one:

Ask Slashdot: Pumping 11 trillion galons of slush?
Posted by: CmdrSlacko on 10234874
El Ingenierio asks: Ya'll might have heard we have a little problem down here in teh Big Easy with teh flood waters due to that biotch KATRINA..., what, I ask, is the best way to pump all the water out, preferaiblely with some open source softweare? Flooded. Lame. No wireless. Possibly can be blamed on Microsoft somehow. Maybe. Any hidraulik engineers out there?

Don't rebuild the city!

[wikinerd]

It would be stupid to rebuild a city in a place where it is known it will be hitted again by hurricanes in the long future. The state and federal governments ought to provide free housing, and consider the option to build a new city elsewhere. I would also say, let's build cities only in places that are not endagered by earthquakes and hurricanes every some years. I can't understand why humans keep building cities in locations where earthquakes and hurricanes happen, it's like ensuring that your grandchildren will be endagered in their life because of your (theirs' ancestor) choices.

Re:Don't rebuild the city!

[jonfields]

We don't need more cities here in the north east. Try iowa or Wyoming or something. Those places are practically deserted.

Re:Don't rebuild the city!

[ksheff]

Do you think NOLA would be inhabited if they got a hurricane like this every year? Or San Francisco if they got a 1906-like earthquake every year? No. This sort of thing doesn't happen all the time. People build cities where it is economically advantages to do so. As soon as it is not make economic sense to live in an area, people will leave.

Re:Please

[PunkOfLinux]

I meant more the people who they are showing on cnn and such as 'so despairing' and it's like, ok, you had warning. In that amount of time, you should be able to get SOMEWHERE.

My little voice about it

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me put in here my (little) experience about floodings.

I live in Venice, well in the hinterland of it. As you may know, it's a city build "on" the water. Or, better said, on a group of islands (107, exactly) in a laguna, directly connected by three connections to the mediterranean sea.
The area suffers from geological bradyseism (sinking) of few centimeters per year.
It's an irreversible process, simply leading to a worse situation as time goes by.

The city suffers an average of 50 floodings per year, with peak heigth of the water of more than a meter in the lower zones.
"Just" 40 years ago, the count of floodings per year was less than a dozen.
Lots are the analysis, conferences and general discussion on which should be best ways to limit the effects of such situation.
Well, the most common answer is: there's no solution.
It is just possible to extend the agony, not to dry up the city.

So, I agree with the cynical comment red so far: if you consider it worth, go and rebuild some kilometers faraway.
Sad but true.

Back to New Orleans - which is not Venice indeed - surely it will be possible to clean the city, polish it up and recall it to normality, but nothing assures you another similar (or even worse) flooding won't occur again, vanishing every effort.

Good luck to whose are still there.

Re:My little voice about it

[DerekLyons]

I live in Venice, well in the hinterland of it. As you may know, it's a city build "on" the water. The area suffers from geological bradyseism (sinking) of few centimeters per year. It's an irreversible process, simply leading to a worse situation as time goes by.

The city suffers an average of 50 floodings per year, with peak heigth of the water of more than a meter in the lower zones. "Just" 40 years ago, the count of floodings per year was less than a dozen. Lots are the analysis, conferences and general discussion on which should be best ways to limit the effects of such situation. Well, the most common answer is: there's no solution.

There is a solution - one the Venitians practiced for centuries. When the water reaches floor of a building - tear the sucker down, raise the foundation, and build a new one.

Venice's problems aren't caused by global warming nor by geology. They stem from a decision in the 1800's to freeze the city in time as a tourist attraction.

Re:My little voice about it

[badxmaru]

an additional thing to recognize is that Venice doesn't get hit with category 5 hurricanes every 5-10 years.
It's like playing "pass the lightning rod" amongst boy scouters in a thunderstorm. When Timmy gets it, someone else gets to pick it up.
Eventually someone wises up, or you run out of boy scouts.

Positive Spillover

[rwade]

At the very least, stop taxing everyone else to subsidize flood insurance for people who insist on building in flood-prone areas.

If they want insurance, let them pay the real cost of it. If they don't, let them take the risk themselves.

You ignore the spillover effects of such spending.

Redistributing money from areas (in the form of insurance subsidies) that don't have events to places like the Gulf and Atlantic coast states that do is a strategy by which areas important to the nation are protected and allowed to develop.

Imagine the United States without the vacation areas of Florida or the history of New Orleans.

Re:Positive Spillover

[pmazer]

Uh oh... people are going to have to vacation somewhere else

Re:Positive Spillover

[typical]

Imagine the United States without the vacation areas of Florida or the history of New Orleans.

On the other hand, imagine the United States without southerners.

Re:ITS OFFTOPIC!!!!!

[mcguyver]

The original authors points seems to be that money to upgrade the levies was moved to homeland security. Had that money been allocated to the levies then flood damage could be mitigated. You, the author, nor I are experts on New Orleans levies or how their tax dollars are spent so arguing this issue is pointless...

Re:Leave it alone

[Hektor_Troy]

Why is it mean and stupid to tell people to move on? Their home isn't around any more, and they'll get their insurance to cover the expenses of rebuilding it anyway, so WHY NOT somewhere else? I'm pretty sure they can get the work done quicker as well, as places like New Orleans and Biloxi is going to be choke points for rebuilding in a very long time.

They have work there, you say? Nope, that was blown away as well. Won't be getting money from them when you're not working, so you're as good as fired anyway. The kids go to school there? Nope, they are gone as well.

Only thing keeping you there is basicaly your memories. Which is a really stupid reason to stay in a place where you have no home, no job and no school for the kids.

the BIG easy...

[slew]

For what it's worth, I think the relocated "town" after the 1993 flood you are referring to was Valmeyer, Illinois. As I recall the population of that town was under 1,000... That would mean it's a little smaller than the BIG easy (I'm guessing about a half a million people). However, as I recall, FEMA refused to give money to people to rebuild at the old site, so they decided to move...

I guess it seems a bit severe to relocate an entire CITY, but you never know. It's not the cheapest thing to do, but it might be the most reasonable thing to do, but call it whatever you want, there's always gonna be a market for a bunch of people living at the mouth of the mighty mississippi...

Yeah, venice has got that flooding thing licked... not... I doubt any type of construction project in the gulf would stop a storm surge. About the only thing that people think would stop a storm surge is a huge tidal marsh area. The tidal marsh area that could have helped buffer the area is receding probably because all the levies that have been built to prevent flooding and the dredging. Hard to imagine a technological solution to this problem...

On natural disasters...

[Ironsides]

I once tried to figure out the safest place to live in the USA. I eliminated all places that have:
Tornados
Hurricanes
Earthquakes
Wildfires
Fierce Blizzards
Sweltering summers (100+ F, 40+ C)
Volcanos
Nor-Easters
Flooding

Ignored tsunamis as they are unpredictable

Had nothing left of the USA after that. Every area of the country has one probkem or another.

Re:On natural disasters...

[qw0ntum]

Maybe I'm partial to where I live but Knoxville, TN doesn't have much of a 'natural disaster' problem, nor does most of Appalachia.

Sure, we had earthquakes a few million years ago, but nothing besided the occasional thunderstorm occurs. It's actually pretty boring weather-wise.

There is, of course, the constant threat of the mass of rednecks rising up or something. Hillbillies coming down from the mountain could be pretty bad indeed.

Re:On natural disasters...

[nuxx]

Actually, Southeast Michigan does a pretty good job avoiding most of these. Yes, there are tornados, but they are few and far between and generally impact a very small area.

It gets plenty warm here in the summer, but lots of people regularly go without A/C and have no problems. It also gets fairly cold, but there's almost never a horrid blizzard. Things might be bad until noon one day, but that's about it.

It's really a pretty all-right area to live in.

Re:On natural disasters...

[Matt Perry]

Earthquakes
...
Ignored tsunamis as they are unpredictable

And earthquakes are predictable?

Re:On natural disasters...

[Ironsides]

Maybe I'm partial to where I live but Knoxville, TN doesn't have much of a 'natural disaster' problem, nor does most of Appalachia.

I live in VA, about 20 miles from DC. I agree, the region looks like the safest place to live. Only problem is the sometimes bad snow falls (as I see it) that occur in the mountains. It scars the shit out of me everytime I have had to drive through West Virginia when it is snowing and visability drops to under 30 feet during the winter. The entire area to me (usually) falls under the snow fall category.

One question. Don't you occasionally have the problem of the coal hills catching on fire (underground, that is?) Here is an example from PA

Re:On natural disasters...

[qw0ntum]

Yeah... Knoxville is in the river valley created by the Tennessee River. We're protected from most storms by the Cumberland Plateau on the west and then the mountains on the east. It's never cold enough down here to cause much snow (usually it's just wet and cold in the winter). Even in higher elevations, there is only an average of about 4"-8" for a snow storm, and the last 'real' snowstorm we had was in 1993.

As for coal hills catching on fire... I've lived here for almost 17 years and I've never heard of that happening anywhere near here. The mountains around here are mostly tourist things; most of the coal is already gone.

Re:On natural disasters...

[Ironsides]

And earthquakes are predictable?

Should have said "Ignored tsunamis as they are unpredictable and fairly rare" Earthquaked are quite common in the areas where they usually occur (such as the west coast) while tsunamis that can cause damageare quite rare.

Re:On natural disasters...

[SplendidIsolatn]

Most of Western Pennsylvania meets your criteria with the only exceptions being floods and tornados. There is lots of land that is flood-immune and tornados have only hit a sparce few times in the last number of years. I'll get the welcome mat out for you.

Re:On natural disasters...

[Matt Perry]

Ok. I can agree with that.

Re:On natural disasters...

[Vellmont]

You didn't look very hard, and you don't understand all natural disasters aren't equal. Tornadoes are rare, and effect only small areas of land when they do occur. You also get advanced warning of them. As for Blizzards, unless you're a dumbass and go driving in the middle of nowhere during one they're harmless, but annoying. Sweltering summers aren't fun, but there's this new invention called air conditioning which eliminates any danger (again, unless you're a dumbass and work yourself to death outside). I don't know what danger you're talking about with Nor-easters, beyond the obvious idiocy of going outside in one.

That leaves Flooding, Volcanos, Earthquakes, and Wildfires. All those things are associated with relatively small areas of the country which you can just avoid.

Re:On natural disasters...

[earnest murderer]

Had nothing left of the USA after that. Every area of the country has one probkem or another. Except that there are only a few areas of the country that experience any of these to significant degree. Build housing appropriate to the climate, dress for the weather and you get everything back except for flood plains and volcanos.

Re:On natural disasters...

[Artifakt]

Eastern Tennessse. Just had an Earthquake last week (3.6 - trivial damage). We don't get big ones. If the whole New Madrid fault let loose with another 10.0 that people would feel in CA, it would dampened at the edge of the mid state plateau into a mere picture straightener.
Tornados? A slight chance of them whenever a storm as big as Katrina makes it this far from the gulf (All little ole F-2s, again usually trivial damage. There have been a few dangerous ones, but it's not like those F4's and 5's in Oklahoma or Kansas, and the survivability closely approaches 100% if you don't live in a trailer park).
Wildfires? Maybe, but its been so wet the last 8 years something's gonna have to change back big time first. Never in our history have we had one like those town eating things they get in Colorado, Nevada, and California.
Flooding? Maybe downstream from TVA projects, but all the dams around here are real solid reinforced concrete construction, none of that earthen dam B.S., and there's lots of hills and ridges breaking up the floodable areas.
Blizzards? yes, but we call it that if there's 8" of snow and a 15 MPH wind. In two days, it will be 44 F and all melted again, and if it's early march, the irises will be comeing up.
For the rest, what's a Nor-Easter? Might see some 90 F days in mid-summer, but seldom a 100 F, and it sure won't last for days (and even at night like it does some places). Oh, and Tsunamis are quite predictable here, in fact I'll predict that a 1 mile diameter asteroid impacting the mid Atlantic at 21 Km/sec will not splash one over the mountains that rise to my east.

Re:On natural disasters...

[earnest murderer]

We'll welcome you to Washington as well. None of these has caused a significant issue for us. In fact, I'd say that the most restrictive of these items really prepareness issues and don't affect liveability significantly.

Re:On natural disasters...

[yokem_55]

You seem to be forgetting that about 25 years ago a little hill in the southeast part of the state got into a tizzy and dumped a couple of feet of ash all over the state...

Re:On natural disasters...

[gamer4Life]

You forgot to include meteor impact in your list.

Re:On natural disasters...

[Maxo-Texas]

I'm sorry but a hot summer is not a natural disaster. Large areas of texas have those every year and do not need natural disaster relief for them.

Tornadoes are an issue but a season of tornadoes doesn't cause the huge destruction a single hurricane can cause.

Looking over your list really only Earthquakes are close to Hurricanes and they don't hit every fall 2-3 times. Serious earthquakes are a bit more like Cat 5 hurricanes (pretty rare and even Katrina landed as a Cat 4).

One you don't include is drought. It's slower than other disasters but can make large areas unlivable for a decade or more.

Re:On natural disasters...

[StikyPad]

Blizzards and "sweltering summers," don't generally wipe out entire cities.

Tornadoes can occur anywhere and even in tornado alley are relatively rare. Certainly the only guarantee of being affected by a tornado is living in a trailer park in Oklahoma.

Most of the land in most of the eastern states, for example, are well above sea level, outside of flood basins, rarely experience tornados, and very rarely experience earthquakes. The possibility of being directly affected by a natural disaster will exist anywhere, but some places are inherently riskier than others.

I currently live in the South Pacific, where getting hit by a typhoon (same thing as hurricane, just what they call it in the Pacific) is a regular occurance -- in fact, there's one bearing down on us this very minute. Fortunately, we're mostly all well above sea level so flooding isn't an issue, and homes have been required to be built out of reinforced concrete by building codes since the 1960s. As a result, there were 0 deaths two years ago when we got pummeled by a super-typhoon (Class 5 hurricane) with sustained winds over 160MPH and gusts over 190. It did take two months to get the power back to 100%, but that was just a minor inconvenience in the grand scheme of things.

Re:On natural disasters...

[earnest murderer]

You seem to be forgetting that about 25 years ago a little hill in the southeast part of the state got into a tizzy and dumped a couple of feet of ash all over the state...

True, I forgot about it. However, "feet" is a gross overstatement. Living on the east side, I've seen worse dust storms.

It made a mess, and a very few (57) died. Those that did knew for weeks of the danger and were either stubborn or there for the event. Volcanos, generally speaking, (St. Helens or otherwise) do not represent a threat unless you are actually living on the mountain.

Re:On natural disasters...

[Cro Magnon]

Kansas City Missouri is pretty safe. We have tornados, but they usually just hit small areas, and I've never seen them in the city itself. The New Madrid fault is closer to St Louis than to KC and might not cut loose in my lifetime anyway. We had a mean ice storm in 2002 that drove me out of my house for a week, but it didn't have anything like the destruction of Katrina. The summers suck, but I've survived 45 years of them. The worst flood we ever had, in 1993, was a leaky faucet compared to Katrina.

Re:On natural disasters...

[CoolHnd30]

I'd count yourself lucky. I'd never seen tornadoes in Indianapolis, either, until last year, when a couple came through and did some pretty big damage on the south side.

Re:Leave it alone

[pizpot]

Couldn't you fix it with nukes?

I'll Tell You What They Do In West Virginia...

[Black-Man]

They buy the property in the flood plain and/or prohibit building in the flood plain. This is happening, today, on the Greenbrier River which is the longest free-flowing river in the east and also floods repeatedly.

Of course, the government has no trouble buying some innocent West Virginian's property... but look what they do in North Carolina with the million dollar homes. They don't TOUCH these and let them rebuild after they are destroyed and *assist* them in getting flood insurance.

So, in other words... if you're a developer who is lining some politicians pocket... you can continually rebuild... if you're some poor schmuck... forget it. Government owns you.

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[Clover_Kicker]

1) Don't feed the trolls
2) Don't expect civilized behaviour online

Farms

[thunderpaws]

It might be cheaper to move everyone out, and turn New Orleans into rice and catfish farms.

Re:Farms

[ksheff]

so where are the people who work on the oil rigs, pipelines, refineries, etc. going to live?

Oh please!

[Luscious868]

Typical American attitude. "Every man for himself!". No sense of community at all.

Get real. There is a differnece between donating your money to those in need and having your money taken from you. If I stick a gun in your face, take your wallet, but give 25% of it to a charity, I'm I not guilty of theft? That's the point the of the original post. I have no problem giving to charitys that will help the people of New Orleans get back on their feet. What I, and many others, have a problem with is that money is taken from us without our permission by the goverment and given to these people when their is a 100% chance that a similar event will happen in the future because of the location these people choose to live in and do business in. Theft is theft, no matter how good you believe the cause to be. Let those who wish to give, give. Let those who do not, keep their money. Nobody is entitled to anyone elses hard earned property or earnings under any circumstances, period.

I realize that's hard for you to wrap your liberal head around but I don't work 8 hours a day , 5 days a week so other people can decide how to spend my hard earned dollars. I work so that I can.

Re:Oh please!

[urbanRealist]

Dude, you get real.

If you can survive by working 8 hours a day , 5 days a week, you must be subsidized in some way. Either:

• You live in the sticks, in which case my tax dollars subsidize your electricity, your phone service, your roads and your house-purchasing incentives.
• You have a government or academic job, in which case my tax dollars pay your salary more directly.
• You were born rich or were given your job by family. Thank daddy.

I work 10 hours a day, 6 days a week as a software developer and system admin. If you work less than that, chances are you're being subsidized, so don't knock it unless you really do work for a living and aren't on some 9 to 5 vaction your whole life.

Re:Oh please!

[radish]

Some people are lucky - they have good well paying jobs. That doesn't make them "subsidized" (very strange choice of words) just lucky, or smart, or (most likely) both. I certainly don't fit any of your categories, I'm entirely self sufficient (and pay $60k a year in taxes & charitable contributions to help out others), and I work less hours than you. I'm not saying this to boast, but to try and point out that you're being somewhat narrow minded.

Re:Oh please!

[An Onerous Coward]

Taxes aren't taken at gunpoint. They're taken because of the decisions of your elected representatives, who have been duly authorized to make such decisions.

Now, maybe Nawlins is just one of those places where it doesn't make economic sense to put a city. But name one area of the country that is fundamentally safe from major disasters. So when things overwhelm a local population, the rest of us pitch in. Why do you find that idea so threatening?

Re:Oh please!

[mrchaotica]

These fellow citizens have pretty much lost everything due solely to their own stupidity. Why should I be forced to reward stupidity?!

Re:Oh please!

[mrchaotica]

African hunting and gathering tribes survive by working 3 to 4 hours a day. The rest of the time they sit around chatting, or dance around their campfires. They're not subsidized in any way whatsoever; they don't even trade with their neighbors, except for unnecessary luxuries. So if you're working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, you're obviously a big, fat chump!

(I'm not making this up, by the way -- they said it verbatim on today's episode of Going Tribal on the Discovery Channel.)

Re:Oh please!

[mrchaotica]

Taxes aren't taken at gunpoint.

Try not paying them sometime!

Re:Oh please!

[musth]

I survive by working 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. My income is below the US national average.

What's my secret? I don't live to spend, and I didn't create other human creatures I have to support. Those are optional things in life, you know.

If you have to work 60 hours per week, in what sounds like mid- to upper-level IT, to "survive", you've probably made your own bed, unless you had some really bad luck. Funny how people's definitions of survival are diffferent.

Btw, everyone's infrastructure is subsidized to a large degree.

Re:Oh please!

[Dasher42]

You must be one of those completely independent, self-made American pioneers. Please tell me how you built your career without government-built-and-maintained roads, sewage, or water, and ate healthfully at home and away with no FDA standards. Or this nice internet we're on; perhaps you invented it, and not Al Gore, but how did you build such a powerful global economy about it? And how did you accomplish all these feats alone with no public libraries or schools to assist you? And how did you keep big companies from dumping toxic waste near your back yard? These are staggering accomplishments for one individual.
 
Yes?

Americans need to quit this ludicrous whining and appreciate that their tax dollars are actually some of the best investments they make. You can accomplish what you do because you stand on the shoulders of honest citizens before you. You are not a victim for paying the dues needed to live in a stable, prosperous civilization. That's not communism, that's just the basic needs of developed society.

I'm sure a tax break could let you afford more electronic trinkets in the near future, but when public services get gutted like they did in my home state when politicians pandered to this kind of drivel, high school and college education got badly stripped, environmental cleanups vanished leaving just barebones monitoring, and our economic future took a turn for the worse. Other expenses, especially for those of us taking college courses to adjust to this changing economy, rose and more than ate up our token breaks. Some of us even had to forgo buying more electronic trinkets.
 
Nobody will win my vote with that nonsense after that.

Re:Oh please!

[musth]

The obvious response is that some areas are a lot more dangerous than others. Our federal tax $$$ are being spent right now to provide emergency assistance to people who, collectively, chose charm over common sense and safety.

There's no shortage of head-in-the-sand around the world when it comes to population and urban planning, but the Gulf Coast and south Atlantic coast are magnets for stupidity. Come on, just about every year there's at least one major hit.

Re:Oh please!

[argoff]

It's not just about tax, it's about accountability and resources. When people pay directly, thay can make the rules directly, attack waste directly, reallocate money directly. Now people have none of that, and less to give because it's already been taken.

Maybe it is a culturial thing. Other cultures hate the poor and disaster ridden so much that they would rather pawn off those responsibilities on government to coerce those resources out of their neighbors rather then choose it out of themselves.

Re:Oh please!

[CGP314]

Do you think any office worker who puts in a 10-hour day actually does more than 3 hours of work?


-Colin

Re:Oh please!

[Emeye]

So if you don't want someone "taking" your money, stop using every governmental service. Stay off the roads, don't come crying when you're robbed by a real crook, and don't expect to have anything proving you own your land but a shotgun.
Declare yourself a seperate country, and stop complaining. And when you get hit by a Tornado/Earthquake/Bolt of Lightning/Meteor/Thermonuclear Device, you better not take any Governmental Aid. This would include Coast Guard rescue from a sinking ship.

Re:Oh please!

[Shepherd Book]

I realize that's hard for you to wrap your liberal head around but I don't work 8 hours a day , 5 days a week so other people can decide how to spend my hard earned dollars. I work so that I can.

Part of living in a civil society is contributing to the upkeep and administration of the society generally, as opposed to your own welfare. It's called a social contract. That's the idea behind taxes. You may not like how the government spends your taxes, but that's another issue entirely. This taxation-is-theft routine is nonsense. If you don't like paying your taxes, move to a country that doesn't have an income tax.

And, BTW, I work twelve hours a day, six days a week, and somehow I can bear to let some of my hard-earned money go to keep my countrymen from dying of starvation or dysentery. I'm funny that way.

Re:Oh please!

[Renaud]

Nobody is entitled to anyone elses hard earned property or earnings under any circumstances, period.

Your being able to earn any property at all is the consequence of an organized society being around and providing you with infrastructure, education, security, contract law... etc and the general organization that makes life in common possible and makes a country worth more than the sum of its parts, period.

So from my European perspective, the kind of short-sighted individualistic crap you display here belongs to the middle-ages, and should a tax-free world exist like you or Bush seem to want, your job or this website probably wouldn't exist in the first place.

And thus you have no business complaining, unless you happen to be writing from a desert island that you turned into a modern living place with your own hands, with no interaction whatsoever with the outside world.

It is difficult to envision from across the pond that ahem, stereotypical a******s like you are for real. But hey, I guess Bush is in office for a reason...

Re:Oh please!

[Dasher42]

Unfortunately, you can count the remaining hunter-gatherer societies on the entire planet on one hand. They've been displaced or assimilated into oblivion. There's a recurring pattern of fear and disgust from settled folk when they see other tribes just wandering around.

I think the Raute of Nepal are one of the few exceptions, as their neighbors tend to respect them, but the government is forcing them to settle and give up their way of life, with justifications like the need to immunize against tuberculosis and other such things that require a stationary folk.

A shame, really, since hunter-gatherers demand less from their environment, and have more egalitarian societies than most of the rest of humanity.

Re:Oh please!

[Luscious868]

Your being able to earn any property at all is the consequence of an organized society being around and providing you with infrastructure, education, security, contract law... etc and the general organization that makes life in common possible and makes a country worth more than the sum of its parts, period.

That perfectly illustrates the differnece between the European and American mindset. You believe that your rights are given to you (and thus can be taken away) by the govement. Americans, on the other hand, believe that the goverment is given it's rights by the people. That idea is enshrined in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

I have the right to own property and to work and to spend my my money how I choose because I exist. Not because the goverment says that I can. The goverment has the right to tax me only because the citizens of the United States of America have given it the power to do so. That power is being abused, and we the people, have the right to correc that should we choose to do so, not the other way around.

Re:Oh please!

[An Onerous Coward]

If we were just talking about New Orleans, I might agree with you. Building a city below sea level, that close to the sea, is asking for trouble. But you cannot seriously be considering abandoning the entire coast south of Virginia.

The first obvious problem is that people need to live there to run the ports. More important, most of the trouble caused by hurricanes can be mitigated by having proper building codes and early warning systems. For example, 2004 was a very bad year for hurricanes, but only resulted in about twenty deaths in the United States.

Where we choose to live has much less effect on our mortality rate than what we choose for occupations, what we choose to eat, how we choose to drive, and whether we choose to smoke. People cannot be written off as irredeemably stupid just because they chose to live in a major metropolitan area within fifty miles of the coast. If you want to talk about magnets for stupidity, McDonalds is an ideal candidate.

Re:Oh please!

[An Onerous Coward]

Simple answer #1: Because barring a thorough IQ testing of the New Orleans population that shows them to be basically dumber than the people who chose to live elsewhere, I reject your assertion of stupidity. We do things for all manner of reasons. Some people probably chose to live there because they were born and raised. Others saw all the other people living there and just assumed it was "safe enough". Still others were aware of the problem, but figured, "Hey, that's why my tax dollars are going towards building levees." Finally, some might have been eager to move to a safer location, but were waiting until they could afford to make the move.

These are the sorts of thought processes you and I use to make our own decisions. Individuals are notoriously bad at gauging risk, and while it might gratify your ego to think how much smarter you are than every one of the citizen of New Orleans who just lost their homes, the simple fact is that you and I have both made unwitting decisions in our lives that may come back to bite us.

Simple answer #2: Because everyone does stupid things at one time or another, or suffers the consequences of the stupid or greedy actions of others. Since it isn't possible to choose correctly in every decision we make, why is it a moral good to demand that everyone receive the full consequences of their bad decisions?

Government intervention can be a wonderful thing. The government programs we've created have given us cleaner drinking water, safer food, medicine, and workplaces, and emergency relief when the vagaries of life overwhelm local resources.

If things ever get bad in your neck of the woods, I'm happy that my tax dollars will protect you from the full logical consequences of your philosophy of rugged individualism.

Re:Oh please!

[Minna Kirai]

African hunting and gathering tribes survive by working 3 to 4 hours a day.

They're only able to survive on such little work because they're supported by the industrialized world around them. A few dollars worth of T-shirts, stainless-steel knives, and discarded soft-drink bottles replaces equipment that would've taken years of labor to construct from local natural materials.

They're not subsidized in any way whatsoever;

It's likely that the Discovery Channel TV crews try to steer you away from looking closely at the reliance on alien artifacts. But it is there.

Archeologically, it is well documented that the transition from hunter/gather to stationary agriculture greatly increased average leisure.

they said it verbatim on today's episode of Going Tribal

Surely you jest; that show is a parade of romantasized misdirection.

Re:Oh please!

[Luscious868]

I work 10 hours a day, 6 days a week as a software developer and system admin. If you work less than that, chances are you're being subsidized, so don't knock it unless you really do work for a living and aren't on some 9 to 5 vaction your whole life.

Perhaps you just have a bad job or picked the wrong sector to work in. I live and work in the suburbs. I work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week with some occasional overtime and I never work on the weekends and that is more than enough to be completely self sufficient. I don't live in the sticks, I work for a small (but growing) business which has nothing to do with the government or academia, I was certainly not born rich and the business I work for is not family owned..

I .. gasp ... payed my own way through college, selected a career path that I knew would be in demand and would pay well and I'm 100% self sufficient minus loans from the bank for my house and my car payment. I also didn't make the most common, life altering, mistake a person can make (if they do it before they are ready). That is, I have yet to get married and start a family. The only person I have to worry about supporting is me. It will stay that way for the time being. All of my friends who are stuck in your position are stuck there because they got married and had kids (or skipped the getting married part and just had a kid) before they should have. Now they are stuck because they've got to support a family. They hate their jobs, but are afraid to quite because they need the money. That won't happen to me. I'm in my mid 20's and won't even think about getting married or starting a family until I'm closer to 30. That gives me time to build up a bit of financial cushion so I can change jobs even after I'm married without having to worry. I bought a modest house at a modest price so mortgage doesn't kill me. It's all about the choices that one makes.

Just because you haven't found a way to work an 8 - 5, 5 days a week and pay your own bills doesn't mean other people have not or that other people can not. It just a matter of making the right decisions. I know that in this world we live in nobody is responsible for their own choices and everything is always somebody else's fault , but we've become that way as a society by choice. That brings me back to my original post. The government doesn't have the right to take my hard earned money and give it to someone else because they made poor choices. Victim's of circumstance I can understand, but if someone chooses to live in floodplain in an area that can be (and has been) affected by hurricanes, they shouldn't get any help by way of my dollars unless I choose to give it to them. Which, BTW, I have by giving to the red cross. Which is probably more than can be said by some of the liberals on this board who talk about giving other peoples money away all day long all the while not giving one red cent in addition to what they pay in taxes.

Re:Oh please!

[Red Flayer]

Nice conservative rant. But, it's misfounded.

The government is taking your money with your permission.

You are represented in government, if you don't like their decisions, run for office, or communicate with your legislators.

If you really don't like it, move to another country. I won't stop you, and neither will the government.

You can complain all you want about your hard-earned dollars going elsewhere, but there are thousands of everyday benefits you reap from government spending. I'll bet you bitch loudly about gasoline prices -- which, if not for government subsidy, would be far, far higher than they are now.

Furthermore, the nation's economic regions are interdependent upon eachother. Without a workforce, a regional economy will collapse -- so where do you want the workers to live? Do you think they'll commute three hours for a minimum wage job? I'd stake my farm on the fact that the cost to rebuild is cheaper than the cost to the public of losing the economy of the region. I suggest you leave the decision-making on spending to people who have an understanding of how economies operate.

I'm not saying I DO know, I'm saying that we need to elect people who we can have the FAITH in to make educated decisions. And when they make decisions we disagree with, we have only ourselves to blame -- we elected them.

Re:Oh please!

[ChrisMaple]

Yes, tax=theft. That is why tax money should only be used to prevent or fix things as bad as or worse than theft, and nothing else. Otherwise, net damage is done.

Re:Oh please!

[ChrisMaple]

Being independent (in the sense of political economics) does not mean living without human contact, it means paying your own way.

The government does not have to be the source of roads, sewage systems, and water supplies. Healthy food does not require the FDA; I grow a little of my own without their interference.

Government is the proper mechanism for protecting rights; there is no reasonable alternative. It is not the proper mechanism for charity because there is an unlimited supply of people saying "gimme".

The "shoulders of honest citizens" that civilization is built on are mostly private sector shoulders.

Re:Oh please!

[Renaud]

I have the right to own property and to work and to spend my my money how I choose because I exist. Not because the goverment says that I can. The goverment has the right to tax me only because the citizens of the United States of America have given it the power to do so. That power is being abused, and we the people, have the right to correc that should we choose to do so, not the other way around.

The origin of the government's power is the people in every democracy, this is the very definition of democracy and it's not US specific thank you very much (and BTW, the US constitution is a superb and pioneering piece of work, you should realize when your current administration starts perverting its principles...)

Once again, in order to get where you are and be able to earn your cherished private property, you have received support from the community of people called the US citizens, in the form of commodities, security, a stable country, education, etc.

It's not like you *really* started from scratch and owe your personal success to nobody but yourself.

You have property because you are part of the American nation, and you *morally and legally OWE* all of your fellow citizens some of that property, so that the whole system can keep on working and provide to others the same opportunities that you've enjoyed.

The government has been elected by the people to take care of that money on their behalf. So it's not an "us vs them" issue.

I will never understand why Americans always fear their government (IOW, themselves since the government stems from the people) and OTOH blindly trust corporations who *obviously* are not working towards the good of citizens : they're working towards their own good and their shareholders' good, it's their very purpose.

Maybe because democracy has been sick in the US for 5 years and government stopped defending the interests of the people ?

The government is supposed to defend the citizens as a whole against external (foreign) threats, and internal ones (powerful citizens or entities abusing the power money gives them, that is to say : corporations). Where is the evil in that ?

Letting the champion of corporate interests inside the White House was letting the fox inside the hens house.
This is why America is bleeding today.

I'll stop there, it painfully feels like stating the obvious. Hope many Americans here share my view (the ones I know face to face certainly do...)

Re:Oh please!

[ChrisMaple]

"short-sighted individualistic crap you display here belongs to the middle-ages"

The middle ages?!!! When everything that wasn't under the absolute control of the government was under the control of the church? Surely you jest.

Re:Oh please!

[ChrisMaple]

I've been voting for low-tax politicians my whole life. They lose more often than they win, and those that win usually increase taxes. Based on that, I have concluded that entering politics would result in me losing elections. My results from communicating with legislators has been "Thanks for agreeing with me" (when I wrote opposing his position) and "we're going to do what you oppose anyway." Since all the other civilized countries are at least as bad, moving is not a good option.

Representation does not equal permission.

Re:Oh please!

[Luscious868]

Once again, in order to get where you are and be able to earn your cherished private property, you have received support from the community of people called the US citizens, in the form of commodities, security, a stable country, education, etc.

No disagreement there, but paying taxes to provide the same to others is a far cry from paying taxes to help people rebuild if they choose to build in a location where it is virtually garunteed that at some point in the future there will be a disaster. To make matters worse, after my hard earned money is taken to help these people rebuild, it'll all happen all over again at some point in the future. Study up on the location of New Orleans. It's below sea level. It's been known for years that a direct hit by a hurricane would cause massive amounts of damange. Yet people choose to live and build there and after it's all said and done will choose to do it again and act amazed and shooked when it happens again. Given that, nobody in this country should be made to pay because these people make poor choices. Tax me for secuirty, for education, for roads, for any services that will benefit all of the people. Taxing me because some minority of citizens made poor choices is where I draw the line. That ought to be left to charities. Which is the point of my original post. Let people who are in need because the made poor choices be helped by the fellow citizens who choose to help. Don't force other people to pay via taxes because somebody else made a mistake.

Note that I'm not talking about all disaster relief. Just disaster relief that is necessary because of poor choices.

Re:Oh please!

[Red Flayer]

"Representation does not equal permission."

Sure it does, you've given consent by choosing to live there, under their rules... it's the consent of the governed.

If you really want action, you'll need to do more than send a letter and vote. You'll need to organize support. You'll need to make sure that they are aware that it will cost them politically to do what you oppose. One vote is meaningless, you've got to get a group, or better, a coalition of groups.

Re:Oh please!

[Dasher42]

The "shoulders of honest citizens" that civilization is built on are mostly private sector shoulders.

Quite incorrect. The roads are largely public. Not one large industry of our country has been without subsidy or special accomodation. Public schools and colleges have produced the training that is indispensable for all of them; in fact, the brain drain in America's favor that existed until recently was to their credit. Post-1929, I'd like to know where any major financing didn't involve funds in banks where FDIC insurance restored enough public trust to put that system back on its feet.

I realize it's fashionable to focus on the flaws of government programs as an excuse to jettison the whole entire thing, but private enterprise just doesn't have the large-scale planning or accountability, or the distribution of benefit that the good government programs have.

Of course, if you *are* growing your own food and not having to buy from stores dependant on the interstate highway network and trucks, or railways, well and good. I sincerely applaud and envy you. My point is that it's completely fair to pay the dues for the society you benefit from, and I doubt any of us here can claim complete independence from the work that society did as a whole using its public programs. Credit where due.

Re:Oh please!

[Luscious868]

You must be one of those completely independent, self-made American pioneers. Please tell me how you built your career without government-built-and-maintained roads, sewage, or water, and ate healthfully at home and away with no FDA standards. Or this nice internet we're on; perhaps you invented it, and not Al Gore, but how did you build such a powerful global economy about it? And how did you accomplish all these feats alone with no public libraries or schools to assist you? And how did you keep big companies from dumping toxic waste near your back yard? These are staggering accomplishments for one individual.

Don't even try to turn this around! Your objeting to a point that I did not make. No one is objecting to the goverment taxing us to provide services that benefit everybody. Read the post before you respond. What I, and others, object to is the goverment taking money from us to provide services that benefit a group of citizens who are in need because they made poor choices. That is what we are objecting to. It's been known for a long, long time that New Orleans would be in serious trouble if a hurricane hit. The entire city is below sea level. Yet people choose to live their and to build there. Then a hurricane hits, causes massive damage and everyone else has to foot the bill? That's classic bleeding heart liberalism at work. I don't mind footing the bill if a disaster occurs that no one was expecting. I will object to the day I die if I'm made to foot the bill for a disaster that occurs because of poor choices.

When choices lead to misfortune, citizens should be allowed to choose to help by way of charities. Which, BTW, I've donated to in this case beacause I think it's a worthy cause and that's they way it should be. The goverment has no business helping anyone but the poorest individuals rebuild. Corporations and everyone else should have either known better or should have gotten insurance. Infrastructure and ports are another story. As they are vital to everyone, the Fed's have every right to use tax dollars to rebuild that.

Re:Oh please!

[badxmaru]

Americans need to quit this ludicrous whining and appreciate that their tax dollars are actually some of the best investments they make.
ok at the expense of sounding too reasonable and level headed, since when are tax dollars the best investments we can make. I seem to recall orange, CA's municipality going bankrupt because they thought they could take some easy money off wall street with the tax savings they had. And what about spending all that money on things like government kickbacks, and payouts to people who sit in their jobs all day pushing paper around. Obviously you've never worked in the California state educational system.

Re:Oh please!

[Dasher42]

I do heartily applaud your gift to charity, and hope it was placed for the maximum benefit.

But as other posts here document well, New Orleans began sinking in the past century as a result of attempts to manage the Mississippi River's flow, and as wetlands were destroyed. Foolish attempts to control nature have bit us all over the place, not just there. But why so much effort invested to begin with? Because the place has significant value to our country. It's a national treasure in logistic, economic, cultural, and historical respects. We're going to feel this loss to the economy, even more so if we abandoned it to the limited resources and abilities of charity.

It's not that I'm not familiar with your argument. It's been with our country from the beginning, and the people who take it up often follow through to trashing nearly every other Federal expenditure they can, especially against localized disasters. By your argument, California should have been emptied, and Washington DC and New York left to dry over the past several years, and the Marshall Plan would have been right out. Am I right?

I don't think aid to rebuild at least parts of New Orleans is just humane, I think it's got historical backing as a smart move.

Re:Oh please!

[scheming daemons]

The same reason that I'm forced to support a war started by a President that I didn't vote for.

If I have to pay toward the billions of dollars that are going to an ill-conceived war that I was against then you can pay some $$ to help your fellow citizens recover from a natural disaster.

We're all forced to reward someone else's stupidity. My taxes are funding such stupidity in Iraq right now.

Re:Oh please!

[ccp]

Do you think any office worker who puts in a 10-hour day actually does more than 3 hours of work?

To the moron who moderated you as Troll: this comment is a +1, Insightful. Idiots.

You're going right to my friends list.

Cheers,
Carlos Cesar

Re:Oh please!

[Dasher42]

I'll not contest that some public projects are haywire, especially in California.

But would you agree with the cuts they made over the past couple years like these?

Re:Oh please!

[protohiro1]

Hey, i have karma to burn, so FUCK YOU. How did you end up where you live? Did you carefully check the risk factors first to make sure it wasn't in any danger? People live in New Orleans mostly because they where born there. Its one of those kind of places. Other people ended up there for various reasons. Are people that live in the bay area also stupid? Should we just evacuate the Bay area because it is earthquake prone? And we should just let the people of new orleans starve and die? Oh my god fuck you man. So you want new orleans to just be gone. No history there, nothing important about the city, its just a place that wastes your tax dollars. I can't form an argument really, I can't get my mind around how you and others that are outraged that we are spending tax dollars to help people. What the fuck is that about? People living in new orleans wasn't a mistake. It just was how it was. People don't make careful decisions about where the live. I have no idea what the risk factors are for where I live (denver), but I know that I live here because I grew up here and got a job here....oh fuck you people. Libertarians by and large have taken selfishness and turned it into a political philosophy. Maybe there are worse things than paying taxes?

Re:Oh please!

[protohiro1]

Oh, and since I already flamed you once, I'll do it again. Are you proposing that we abandon all small towns in the great plains? Those places are just asking to get wiped out by a tornado...

Convergence of Really Bad Things

[Dasher42]

What worries me is that the "toxic gumbo", with gasoline on the water and an oil tanker aground, are going to be a scarey thing to deal with. I'm afraid of fire and pollution making this even more untenable.

I also am of the suspicion that there are a lot of buildings that weren't constructed to deal with nine weeks of flooding.

Polder the lake next to New Orleans...

[Yaa 101]

It will bring land and make the chance or dike collapse a bit smaller. Major lakes near Amsterdam were poldered because they changed into dangerous waters when storms came over.

What we need is ...

[Agarax]

A beowulf cluster of Sharks with Laser beams running Linux shipped in from Soviet Russia to burn away all the water for a profit.

Re:Leave it alone

[rob.wolfe]

Building codes can also make a big difference. My home got hit by TWO hurricanes last year. I had no damage. Lots of older homes near me get a lot of damage.

I don't know about your house but mine wouldn't do too well when hit with water 4 feet (or more) deep. Unless your building code requires all houses to have pontoons there is little that it is going to do to stop a flood.

relocate not rebuild

[J05H]

title says it all.

It'll be cheaper to select a new site that is above sea level, add modern infrastructure from the underground up, then put a modern city in. Re-wall the French Quarter and turn it into an amusement park among the ruins. Rebuilding in such a non-ideal location, after this sort of repeatable disaster, is idiotic. Not that anyone is going to listen to me.

Josh

We need a first generation of pioneers.

Re:relocate not rebuild

[searchr]

"Rebuilding in such a non-ideal location, after this sort of repeatable disaster, is idiotic"

That would pretty much rule out the entire state of Florida (hurricanes), the plain states (tornadoes), the southwest (unbearable heat, drought, wildfires), and anything on any coast (mudslides), and of course, Texas (Republicans).

Not that I'm saying you're wrong, its just that, there doesn't seem to be anyplace that's both perfectly safe, AND even remotely interesting, in which to live.

And if you say "Idaho" you'll just be proving my point.

Re:relocate not rebuild

[J05H]

I'm not advocating perfect safety. There are industrial reasons, for instance, to have development on the Gulf coast. Locating a city in an ecologically disruptive, sub-sea-level bowl is a recipe for repeated disasters. Perhaps they could build a much bigger levee system, but that will just provide more spectacular failure modes. The best solution I can think of (besides relocation) would be to build up the city street level so that it is above sea level, basically build a several square mile ziggurat and put the city on top.

the US Southwest has been home to extremely productive civilizations for thousands of years. Florida is another disaster zone. The people of the Plains have had effective ways of dealing with tornadoes (pit houses). I can't speak for Texas.

Re:relocate not rebuild

[scheming daemons]

Pittsburgh.

That's right. Move them all to Pittsburgh.

• 1000-feet above sea-level
• rolling hills that protect against tornadoes
• thousands of miles from the nearest fault line
• Temperate climate - far enough north to avoid the oppressive heat in summer, but also far enough south to avoid the oppressive cold in winter
• No problem with illegal immigration
• Within 500 driving miles of half of the population of North America.

Yes... move them all to Pittsburgh.

What to say?

[jskiff]

My heart goes out to the popoulation of New Orleans, and all of Louisiana and Mississippi right now. While its reputation is that of a party town, it's easy to forget that there are a lot of people who live (or perhaps lived) there who had no way out of the city.

All of that being said, however, I predict Hand Grenades will outsell Hurricanes 5:1 at Pat O's during Mardi Gras '06.

Re:Leave it alone

[BigZaphod]

"Saying that these people should "just" move on is uncaring, mean, and stupid"

Huh? No one is being uncaring. The fact is that it's stupid to blatantly repeat your past mistakes. Most anything that held any sort of emotional attachment is gone, the people have already been forced to move out, the who delta has been dying, the city was sinking anyway, etc. Now is the perfect time to fix things by relocating the city and starting over and that's not an uncaring statement or making little of the situation in any way.

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[Ironsides]

his is a massively sad event, and we get jokes?

As has been said before, and I will repeat it for you. Humor is a way for people to deal with stressfull situations. It helps relieve the stress and calm people down. Without humor, we would probably all snap or breakdown. For now, let people have their humor. It may be gallows humor, but it helps people cope. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people here making jokes have friends/relatives in New Orleans.

(I am a US citizen, I live in VA, not that far from the Pentagon).

why did all the pumps shut down?

[SuperBanana]

Don't live in a city that is 8 feet below sea level. Flooding WILL occur.

...and if you do, build your pumping stations so that they can work submerged and without grid power, so that next time, they don't ALL FAIL. It's not like we don't have the technology- submarines, for example.

How much can it cost to build a solid foundation, and put a big diesel engine with a big fuel tank either in a sealed container with a snorkle, or put the engine bits up top a high tower (with substantial reinforcement)? This ain't rocket science.

Also, why don't the levees have anything but dirt in 'em? Why can't they have periodic concrete segments or something to stop breaks from spreading and to use as a base for emergency repairs?

Re:why did all the pumps shut down?

[surprise_audit]

I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect the levees are probably mostly silt dredged out of the main channel. Concrete could be inserted while piling up the silt, but maybe that didn't occur to anyone, or they couldn't get the funding. The silt arrives for free, all they have to do is haul it out of the river...

Re:why did all the pumps shut down?

[oRdchaos]

The 17th street canal levee that broke was solid concrete... A large number of the levees that are actually directly up against water (most of them are some distance from the water to allow for some flood area) have a concrete facing up against the water to protect from erosion.

A large number of the pumps seemed to have worked fine for a while... Some pumps on the west bank of the river are manually controlled diesel pumps (they're rarely needed) so those couldn't be started up...also their roofs blew off and they were claiming that no one could get to them to start things up.

They just built a brand new pumping station along the interstate along the evacuation route, and I believe those failed pretty quickly.

The last ones to go were just overwhelmed by the breach in the levee. Basically they were constantly pumping water into the lake, only to have it flow right back in. I can understand that a little bit more... They eventually overheated and shut down I believe.

Re:why did all the pumps shut down?

[drgonzo59]

Pumping so much water out is like pumping the water out of the Titanic with a bucket. It won't help much. If the water is getting there fast enough to cover the pumps in such a short time, the pumps won't do much. Just abandon the city and move some other place.

Speaking of that, I wonder how many people as the result of this will decide to move, even if they didn't suffer any direct material losses? I imagine, I lived there, I would be selling my house and moving North. Even Kansas with the tornados doesn't sound bad after what Ms. Katrina did...

Re:why did all the pumps shut down?

[Grishnakh]

The problem with these ideas is that they cost a fair amount of money. In other parts of the country, the cost would probably be affordable. But not in Louisiana, because it costs at least 10 times as much to do the same public works project as anywhere else, because of all the hands you have to grease. Louisiana is notorious for its corruption. There was once an incident where they paid millions of dollars for new pumps to pump the water out of the city, and when they went to turn them on, nothing happened. They went to the pumphouses to see what the problem was, and there were no pumps! The money got paid to various people, and no one actually put any pumps in.

Re:why did all the pumps shut down?

[Anubis350]

This ain't rocket science.

turbines, resistant materials, big engines and sealed eviroments... sounds like it could be...

Re:why did all the pumps shut down?

[RiffRafff]

They shut down because they were never meant to pump out hurricane swells, just normal rainfall. It's a basin, remember. Might as well ask, why did the air conditioning go out in the Superdome when they have generators? Because they weren't meant to handle it.

Re:why did all the pumps shut down?

[dennypayne]

Also I heard a while back one of the runways at MSY had to be closed for months after it had just been resurfaced. The resurfacing job had been done very poorly and the runway was basically coming apart. The recipient of the contract to repair the botched job was.....the original contractor who had botched the job in the first place!! Amazing..

Denny

What can be done about draining?

[Zebra_X]

Nothing. That's the problem. There are no true drains in new orleans beacuase it's below sea level.

Break the levies and rebuild the city on the north coast of the lake.

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[nerotik]

Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was getting progressively more frustrated by the utter insensitivity shown by the posters in this article. "Wah wah tax dollars, wah wah floodplain, wah wah just move." I suppose you all live somewhere where a natural disaster couldn't possibly ever happen?

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[j1y]

Replace the word "water" with "rubble", U.S. with Iraq, "natural" with "politically-motivated" and a few others, and you're now talking about Fallujah. Insensitivity's just part of human nature; some would say a necessary one.

Close?

[klept]

You say very close to the worse case scenario. How close really? Reason ask, is that before this hit, recieved 2 emails from "information sources", saying if worst case happened it would be a national and world economic catastrophe. The reason it would be a catastrophe, supposedly, has not much to do with New Orleans- but with the Port of Louisiana, or Mississipi, I cant remember which.

So tell me

[achurch]

Really, just a massive airdrop of sponges over the city, et voila, your problem, she is solved!

So tell me, were you planning to be the one to go around and pick up all those sponges afterwards? Dripping with mud? By hand?

Re:So tell me

[typical]

I was wondering why a city covered with 25' of wet sponges is better off than a city covered with 25' of water.

not to meantion

[CiXeL]

the cocktail of industrial chemicals from chemical plants that were smashed.

Re:not to meantion

[jlanthripp]

And the raw sewage from the 1600 miles of sewer lines in the city of New Orleans alone whose contents are now mixing with the floodwaters.

Move New Orleans

[ztirffritz]

This reminds me of a Sam Kinison comment: "Why ship food to the Ethiopians!? Ship the Ethiopians to the food." In this case, why not move New Orleans to where the Lake was that was above the level of the city, which has now migrated to downtown New Orleans?

Re:Leave it alone

[cosmic_0x526179]

Like most cities with a long and distinguished history.., the folks that got there first (i.e. in the french quarter) took the high ground... FOR THE OBVIOUS REASON ! Now we have folks being sold condos and split-levels all over the city and while they know (somewhere in the back of their mind) that they (and their house) are below sea level, it usually never occupies that much thought... until the shit really hits the fan. It just hit the fan... big time.

Some reports are saying that the govenor wants the entire city evac'ed. I am *guessing* that they may have to let the bowl fill up before they can get decent repairs on the levee. The only event I can even imagine of this scale is for the San Andreas to let loose right under LA (and I reallly hope that does not happpen in my lifetime). This is way beyond a catastrophe. This is functionally (if not literally) the destruction of a major US city. Other than the act of god bit, it would take a nuke to equal what just happened. How would you like to flee your home, then get told that it may be months before you are allowed back, and then to see what all that water did to the carpets, drywall, etc.

Folks, it doesn't get much worse than this.. except for death... and some folks bought that ticket.

Ice-9?

[EdA]

Time for some Ice-9?

"Someday son, this will all be yours"

How about blaming Louisiana?

[asdfasdfasdfasdf]

Excuse me, but why should I have to pay tax dollars to a state who put a city 17 feet below sea level? This was an inevitability, and why should the FEDERAL government have to suck it up? Sure, you could 'fill in the blank' with all sorts of pork projects, but seriously, more socialism isn't the answer here.

I already made my contributions to New Orleans. I stayed in their hotels, ate their food and patronized their stores. They should have been putting more of the tax revenue into the levee system, apparently.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[koreth]

Natural disasters happen everywhere. Earthquakes, for example. Only in California, you say? Of the largest quakes in US history, California barely makes the top 10. (Missouri and Alaska are much worse places to be, quake-wise.) Volcanoes erupt. Rivers overflow and dump flood waters into cities.

Speaking as a Californian, I am happy my taxes are paying to help out the folks in Louisiana and Mississippi. And should disaster strike where I live -- which it will, given enough time -- they'll help me out as well, and we'll all end up better off.

Now, that said, I'd hope that the rebuilding effort takes this disaster into account and that whatever replaces the devastated areas will be built such that it comes closer to withstanding another big hurricane. (Obviously it's impossible to build a city that'll survive unscathed if the storm is big enough.)

The federal government spends billions on a lot of stupid things I feel are a total waste of my money. This isn't one of them.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[JonXP]

Here's the thing, it wasn't PUT there, it settled over time. I could go into all the reasons why (involving sediment, flooding and such) but just a logical view would let you realize that they couldn't have built it in the first place if it'd always been below sea-level because it would have been underwater. The levees were built up over time to prevent flooding from the Mississippi, and the city just kept sinking under the protection of the them.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[winwar]

"Natural disasters happen everywhere. Earthquakes, for example."

True. But only a moron builds on a fault. Or in the immediate danger area of a volcano. Or in a flood plain. Or really needs a study to figure out what will happen if it lets loose :)

It is pretty obvious what would happen if a Cat5 hurricane struck New Orleans directly. Total disaster. Not much point in studying it.

Some risks can't be avoided (EQ's, storms in general). But building a city below sea level is just plain stupid. As is funding to rebuild it.

Sure help the people, provide disaster aid but don't make it so the problem repeats itself.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[gremlin_591002]

They didn't actually build below sea level. The built at sea level and the weight of the buildings actually caused a subsidence. The way the older building in town were built on what amount to floating pilings is facinating. I lived in New Orleans for a year. I came to hate the smell but I loved the people and city. They have problems but it is a very cool place. I for one, hope they do manage to rebuild. New Orleans is every bit as unique and New York, San Fransisco, or London. It deserves our best efforts.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[birge]

Well, I think you're sort of right. The Feds waste a lot of money, and this is HUGE waste of money in the sense that it didn't have to happen. But given that it did, I totally agree that we need to help them. But the originally poster wasn't suggesting we don't help them, he was pointing out the obvious: the nation shouldn't pay, repeatedly, the bail out people who live in uninhabitable parts of the country. If these people actually had to pay for their own insurance, I bet a lot of them wouldn't live there.

Do you really think people in Denver are as likely to suffer a natural disaster as people in San Fran or along the banks of the Mississippi? Only a few areas in the country recieve federal disaster funds, and it's always the same places. Maybe people, in the future, should pay for their own risks, the same way the rest of us do. Just a crazy right wing idea.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[DeadMilkman]

Well then lets move 75% of the US...

Because you realize 75% of the US population lives within Hurricane distance.

Almost our major cities are coastal cities.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[snuf23]

Guess where your tax dollars are going to go now?

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[cloudmaster]

Well, one can pretty easily tell where volcanoes are - they're hiding underneath the big mountain of rock. So, I don't think the government should be required to help me live next to a friggin' volcano. Similarly, it's obvious where floods are likely to occur. If your house is right next to a stinkin' river, or 17 feet below sea level in a swamp at the end of a major river, well, you can expect to be involved in a flood at some time. New Orleansians knew damned well that they were moving to a place that's very likely to flood - even the primitive French and Native people could tell that there was a whole lot of water around when they built their first house out of crawfish exoskeletons. I feel bad that the flood happened, but if some boob values spicy burned catfish over living out of obvious harm's way, well, there's not much I can do to help... I'd love to run naked and drunk in crowded streets more often, but thanks to my sacrifice in that area, my house is well above water at this time.

Then again, I don't think moving to a place where there are lots of "minor" earthquakes makes a whole lot of sense either. The sun comes out most everywhere, and I'll take "has had one really big earthquake in the last 250 years" over "has a fairly substantial quake every 6 months" any time.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Washizu]

"I stayed in their hotels, ate their food and patronized their stores."

You forgot "looked at their boobies"

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[jim_v2000]

Here's the thing, it wasn't PUT there, it settled over time.

Well, maybe it's time for them to PUT it somewhere else?

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[jbplou]

You sir are a huge idiot.

You think the Feds shouldn't help clean it up, we should just let parts of our country get destoyed. Have thousands of poor starve and die in the streets. Now since your a bastard who does not care about people, let me tell you something else if you leave 3 states in such a poor state it could trigger an econmic colapse for the whole country.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Mark Imbriaco]

There is a difference between being in a coastal city and being below sea level.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[photon317]

Yeah, but you'll notice there are bajillions of people living in Missouri or Alaska. Most people are fairly smart, at least smart enough not to live by choice directly on a major geologic fault line (or in a city below sea level on a coastline known for hurricanes, or in an arctic wasteland, etc).

I have very little sympathy for people who lose it all in New Orleans Hurricanes or California Earthquakes, and I don't feel any desire at all to open up my pocketbooks to help bail you guys out of trouble either.

Unexpected and extremely rare natural and manmade disasters can and will happen just about anywhere, and I'm all for aid in those situations. But don't build (or live in) a city like New Orleans (or the population centers along the major CA faults), and pretend like you didn't know this shit was coming and beg for help when it does. All the rest of us knew better and made the wise choice not to be there in the first place.

A *really* ironic thing was on the news Sunday during the pre-hurricane coverage. The reporter was shooting a scene off of a beach off of either Louisiana or Missisippi. Even though the hurricane was still at least 18-24+ hours out, the water was already surging and rolling violently, and the public had been warned to stay out of the water. Yet there were 5-6 dumbass 16-25-ish looking males on *Jetskis* out there playing in it. The reporter pointed out their irresponsible actions, and said something along the lines of, "Folks, listen to the authorities and don't do dumb things like this. You may think it will be fine, but if or when you get in trouble out there, the authorities are going to have to come out and risk their own lives to save you, as well as divert considerable resources from what they have available to deal with everything else they have to do today".

The first thing that came to my mind when I saw that segment was to metaphor-ize that into the population of New Orleans out there on the Jetskis, and my tax-paid resources having to divert their efforts and risk their necks over the stupidity of building a city like that and filling it with people.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Scudsucker]

Well, one can pretty easily tell where volcanoes are - they're hiding underneath the big mountain of rock

What if the last eruption was 10,000 years ago? More to the point, if you wont live in an area that has had a natural disaster, just kill yourself right now, because that place doesn't exist.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Anonymous Coward]

Denver, however nice it is, can't contribute as much to the economy as a coastal city. The vast majority of imports and exports are via ship. Now, pretty much the entire eastern seaboard and gulf coast are exposed to hurricanes (except maybe Masschusetts and Maine). The west coast gets earthquakes and volcanos. The northwest gets blizzards. So, if you don't build in areas exposed to large scale disasters, you don't have much of an economy anymore. That's disregarding that most of the people live in those areas, and that fish account for a fair amount of food.

Now, precautions need to be taken. Construction in California is totally different than in most of the rest of the country, to minimize earthquake damage. People in the northwest keep food and fuel for when they can't leave their house due to weather. The southeast needs to be built with hurricanes in mind, so that we don't lose entire cities. (Admittedly, I know nothing about building for hurricanes. I'm a west coast guy.) New Orleans sinking below sea level certainly doesn't help them survive something like this.

Now, you aren't going to build a city that can survive if mother nature really gets pissed off, but you can make one that will take the normal stuff in stride and take less damage from the big ones. In the latter case, federal help for those who still got the brunt of it seems alright to me.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe people, in the future, should pay for their own risks, the same way the rest of us do. Just a crazy right wing idea.

Definitely a crazy right wing idea. I know, lets be even crazier and quit bailing out banks and airplane operators and other companies who can't manage to not fuck themselves up! Hell, let's even stop subsidizing oil companies (sorry, I guess we call them "chemical plants" now, so they don't have to pay "oil refinery" taxes and obey "oil refinery" environmental laws) now that they're in their blackest period ever. Just another crazy right wiiiiaaaitaminute...

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Grishnakh]

Maybe I'm just talking out my ass, but I can't think of any natural disasters ever to hit Arizona, specifically the desert region (Phoenix-Tucson) where I live. It gets really hot, but that's quite survivable as long as you have water to drink, and we've had some nasty thunderstorms during monsoon season, but again nothing life-threatening. We never get natural disasters here: hurricanes, tornados, tsunamis, earthquakes, ice/snow storms, etc.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Guppy06]

Because the FEDERAL government collects a lot of tax on gasoline that comes out of Louisiana refineries. A lot of gasoline and other petrochemical products come out of the region and Louisiana historically doesn't see very much of the tax money collected on it.

If you think Louisiana should pay for it all itself, then give them back their money, stop taxing their oil, and let the state with the most offshore oil operations in the gulf excise the heck out of oil sales inside and out of the state.

Where the heck else are you gonna get your oil fix, Florida? For better or for worse, Louisiana is the only state that has consented to allow things to be built in "their backyard," and the nation as a whole has benefitted from it. If you don't think federal money should be involved in upkeeping the state, realize that sword cuts both ways.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Grishnakh]

I think what people are proposing here is not moving an existing, perfectly functioning city, but simply not rebuilding a wrecked city, and instead rebuilding nearby on higher ground. Another poster here wrote about how this was done in Galveston when it was leveled by a hurricane: only part of the city was rebuilt, and everyone else moved to Houston, away from the shore.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[rpj1288]

Well, uh, see there's this thing about the city already being there when we got it in the early 1800s. Something about it being the most important port in the west. Something about it being over 200 years old!

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[coaxial]

Excuse me, but why should I have to pay tax dollars to a state who put a city 17 feet below sea level? This was an inevitability, and why should the FEDERAL government have to suck it up? Sure, you could 'fill in the blank' with all sorts of pork projects, but seriously, more socialism isn't the answer here.

You cavalier attitude shows you don't seem to understand the situation, and your incorrect use of the word "socialism," shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

Here's why the federal government must, should, and will pay:

1. New Orleans is a major sea port. It is pretty much THE agricultural export port for the entire United States east of the Rockies. The loss of the port is a major hinderence to not only the national economy, but the world's, since the United States is the world's number one agricultural exporter. The federal government has a duty to maintain the health of the national economy.

2. All the states, except for about 5 (I know, Vermont and Delaware, but I don't remember the others. They were all small states though.), don't have any money. In fact, they're bankrupt. Even if they did have budget surplus, they wouldn't have nearly enough (early estimates place the amount of damage at 1 trillion dollars). With the complete loss of the major city and several of the major industries (tourism, agriculture and trade, oil and gas, and tourism), Louisiana doesn't have tax base anymore, so even if they had to come up with their own funds, they have no way of doing so.

3. This is a humanitarian disaster the scale of which is unseen in the history of the United States. The devastation is vast. Litterally millions are homeless. With high, stagnent water, in what is effectively swamp land, could lead to wide spread outbreak of disease. This means that the longer it takes to clean up, the worse the situation is going to get.

4. One of the roles of government is doing what others can't do for themselves. The people in Louisiana, Mississippi, and all those along the Gulf Coast, can't clean help themselves. They are our countrymen, and they're in dire need. If you were a civilized individual with any ounce of decency, you'd recognize that.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Grishnakh]

Here in Phoenix, we don't get earthquakes, volcanos, blizzards, tornados, or hurricanes, and if our recent housing surge and the fact that we're one of the fastest-growing parts of the country are any indication, our economy is doing just fine.

Denver is quite a large city, and people don't move to a large city if the economy there sucks, so obviously they're doing something right. IIRC, there's quite a few high-tech and defense industries there. You don't need to be next to the water to build useful things.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[carlback]

IT'S 17FEET BELOW SEA LEVEL!!!!!

on 70% of the planet that gets you drowned quick, I'll pay for this one just because but screw my taxs going for th next one

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Grishnakh]

I don't know about the other people here, but obviously I believe people should be provided humanitarian aid to get through this thing.

That said, however, I think "beggars can't be choosers", and the government (and by extension, we the taxpayers) should NOT pay for rebuilding efforts UNLESS major changes are made, such as bulldozing most of the city and rebuilding it on higher ground. Sure, the French Quarter and the Garden District could be walled off and protected for their historical value, but the rest of the city is nothing special and doesn't need to be saved. Give it back to the gators. Just because we need a major sea port on the Mississippi river doesn't mean we have to put it in that exact spot, which happens to be under sea level. Build it a little upriver on higher ground, someplace which has more protection from storms and doesn't require constant pumping.

Doing anything else reminds me of the scam where rich people buy beachfront property, get flood insurance from the federal government, and every few years a big storm comes along and wipes out their house, and then the taxpayers have to pay to rebuild another house in the exact same spot. There's no excuse for this kind of idiocy.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[topham]

So it wouldn't be a natural disaster if 300 million people moved in with you? :)

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Gr8Apes]

Sure, natural disasters happen everywhere, but their impact can be lessened by, say, not building your city on a sinking landmass that's under sea-level to begin with.

Unlike the Dutch, those in New Orleans have a choice to not live under sea-level. Also, unlike the Dutch, those in New Orleans live in a regular "hurricane alley". Allright, so Florida took that trophy over the last two years. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to pass it on, it still doesn't change the fact that the gulf coast gets hit regularly with hurricanes.

As for helping the victims, sure, but only once, with a generic yellow truck, ie move out to a new safer place. I don't want to help them rebuild so this can happen again, perhaps as early as next year. (I'm guessing it's going to take at least past this hurricane season before anything meaningful will happen.)

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Stagemonkey]

1)You're an asshole
2)You're an asshole
3)You're an asshole
4)The state didn't put the city 17 feet below sea level. The French and the Spanish did. At the time, the city was not nearly so far below sea level
5)As for your assertion that the state and city should have put more money into the levee system; the levee system is part of the reason the city is so far below sea level. Due to the levee system, the river cannot flood on a yearly basis and deposit silt. Therefore the existing land settles out year after year after year, causing the city to sink.
6)You're an asshole
7)I hope you get cancer. Horrible, disfiguring, painful cancer. Not someday, but *NOW*. I hope you marry an alcoholic man who beats you daily. I don't care if you're a man or a woman, I hope he beats you daily, rapes you anally, and posts pictures of it on the internet. I'd pay to see them.
Sincerely,
A New Orleanian in DC

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[johnny cashed]

Ok, I am talking a little out of my ass, but you're a resident, so maybe you can tell me about it. Would the Phoenix-Tucson area support the current population if not for large western dams? I understand that the area is a desert normally, and that it is facing a long term water shortage crisis. The rivers are tapped, the undergound aquifier is depleting faster than regenerating, and they are now tapping the Colorado river. Could a solid drought be considered a natural disaster? New Orleans isn't a natural disaster, it is a man made disaster. A large population decided to overdevelop a region prone to flooding due to hurricane activity which is know to happen in the region. They also failed to properly prepair for this event. Is Phoenix prepaired for a sustained drought? It isn't an acute disaster (like the Indoneasian tsunami), but if you have to leave Phoenix in the future due to water shortages, would that count? Or would it just mean that no one has lucious green lawns and golf courses? I lived for a year in Orange Beach Alabama. It was temporary from the start, because I don't wan't to live there, but I got to see the destruction of Ivan. I evacuated, as I believe any sane person would. But the gulf coast of Alabama has become a playground for the affluent and while there are a lot of good, hard working class folks there, it will aways be in demand because it is the beach. The locals support the tourism economy because it pays well. The Mississippi river is a major artery of commerce, therefore the mouth is going to be a hub of activity. A lot of people lost out in this last hurricane. I hope they weren't suprised, because they shouldn't be. I believe that huberis won the day and therefore a lot of deaths occured. I feel that a lot of deaths could have been prevented.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[angeles13]

we just get excessive heat warnings and advisories, and crummy roads - that's all

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[coaxial]

Actually, funds have been spent since the 1960s to shore up the city. From Philadelphia Daily News:

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

Anyway, there's a great opportunity to dramatically change the city now. Raising the city, and possibly moving it should be considered. If you're going to make a dramatic and painful switch, then you have to do it now. Of course moving/raising the city is an incredibly expensive and painful process. The devastation from Katrina is estimated at 1 trillion. To rebuild the city higher, it would cost even more. 2, 3, 4 times more? I honestly don't know, but it would be much much larger.

Doing anything else reminds me of the scam where rich people buy beachfront property, get flood insurance from the federal government, and every few years a big storm comes along and wipes out their house, and then the taxpayers have to pay to rebuild another house in the exact same spot. There's no excuse for this kind of idiocy.

I believe that's not allowed anymore. I think, in the Carolinas at least, you can expand you buildings on the barrier islands, but if your buildings are destroied, you can't build back, and no new construction is allowed.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[DrugCheese]

Yea the real people pissed off about the tax dollars live in North Dakota where nothing happens. ever

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[afidel]

Yes, but actually having water available is a good thing. Phoenix as a large population center is a basically untennable long term solution. There simply isn't enough good old H20 to keep up an even semi-modern lifestyle for a large number of people. Now the great lakes states are more like it for long term viability. Lots of fresh water, lack of major geological or climitalogical disasters (blizzards last at most a couple days and kill a handfull of unprepared people), the only thing we lack is year round perfect weather (and no Phoenix doesn't have that, without A/C I doubt 10% of the population would want to live there). Denver has most of the drawbacks of the great lakes with the additional problem of forest fires.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[coaxial]

I live in the New Madrid fault. There hasn't been a major one here since th 1811 one that caused the Mississippi River to flow backwards. Yes, there was one this year, but it was only 3 and no one felt it. We know there's going to be another massive one, but it's not exactly anything we worry about, and have only made cursory preperations. My parents bolted the bookcases to the wall, and the State of Illinois earthquake hardened the bridges in Southern Illinois, but that's about it. (That nut job, Iben Browning, was actually good for something.) It probably won't happen anytime soon, and there's nothing you can do to prevent it anyway. My parents do have earthquake insurance though. (In your face California! :) )

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[mrchaotica]

The Dutch have a choice too -- they could all emigrate to France or something. Also, Katrina did hit Florida; it just wasn't as strong at that point.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[birge]

Denver, however nice it is, can't contribute as much to the economy as a coastal city.

Denver contributes more to the national economy than any of the affected cities, I believe.

So, if you don't build in areas exposed to large scale disasters, you don't have much of an economy anymore.

Well: Boston, NY, Chicago, Seattle, Atlanta, Denver, Houston, and LA (maybe) are in relatively safe areas to build. Those are pretty much our biggest economic cities. We have plenty of ports that aren't in flood zones. Please, the location of our cities is about history, not intelligent locating. We know better now, and we should act like it.

Now, pretty much the entire eastern seaboard and gulf coast are exposed to hurricanes (except maybe Masschusetts and Maine).

Yes, but WE'RE ABOVE SEALEVEL and set back from exposed ocean enough to weather it. You don't see NY get flooded every decade, do you?

New Orleans sinking below sea level certainly doesn't help them survive something like this.

It's always been below sea level. And they've always known that. They should've had a trust fund or something for this. They have no excuse for billing the nation to bail out their cesspool of a city (yes, I've been there). We should and we will, but we should all get free drinks there for the next few years.

Now, you aren't going to build a city that can survive if mother nature really gets pissed off, but you can make one that will take the normal stuff in stride and take less damage from the big ones. In the latter case, federal help for those who still got the brunt of it seems alright to me.

A cat 4/5 hurricane IS normal for that part of the country! Federal money should go to unpredictable/unavoidable disasters. Not the hurricane of the month. These folks need to either move or pay for their own insurance. Now, they have a perfect opportunity to take their insurance money and leave. But will they? No. Because they know we'll bail them out in a decade when this happens again.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Qrlx]

Excuse me, but why should I have to pay tax dollars to a state who put a city 17 feet below sea level?

It's impossible for any locality to sink the tons and tons of money into a may-never-need it "insurance" project when are Unions to bribe, buses to fuel, clinics to operate, children to teach, trash to collect, stadiums to build, and parking tickets to settle in municipal court.

New Orleans is one of a handful of truly world-class cities in the United States, it has tremendous value culturally and historically.

But more than anythintg, because New Orleans is one of the four places in America you can legally walk down the street with a beer in your hand. It's very sad to see one of the last American bastions against "Judeo-Christian Values" go under. I hope it comes back, but I'm not holding my breath.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[wibs]

First off, federal disaster aid gets spread around. It does not all go to hurricanes. That should be enough of a counter, but for the sake of argument I'm going to pretend what you base your point on is true.

Assuming that what you want happens, and federal aid for disaster relief becomes a thing of the past, what are the effects? You seem to assert that people will simply not wish to live with the risk, so they'll move. That might apply to a relatively small number of people with the means to move, but what about everyone else, the people lacking not only the means/education/whatever to pick up and move, but also most in need of aid after a disaster?

Let's pretend everyone will be able to move after a cutback in disaster funding, for whatever reason (my guess is a gov-funded program, which kind of defeats the purpose, but whatever). Where will they all go? What will happen to where they move? The black exodus from the south in the 50s had a pretty profound effect, and the actual number of people who moved was tiny compared to the number that stayed. What happens when everyone moves?

Personally, I don't think the upper classes will move, or the lower classes, or really much of anybody. People would stay, a disaster would (agreed, inevitably) come, and some people would come out of it better than others - which would seem fairly similar to how things are today. The difference is that everyone would come out worse. I'm not going to pretend to know the future, but it seems to me that this might be something of a drain on the economy of many southern states, which already doesn't compare favorably to much of the country, which could conceivably cause some less-than-satisfactory changes to how the south interacts economically with the rest of the country. I know, slippery slope argument, and I'm hardly an economist, meteorologist, or geologist, but these things should at least be kept in mind when making decisions that affect a huge number of people.

Anyway, these are just some crazy left wing ideas. You know, that big things might have effects.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[mrchaotica]

That's no excuse to keep building on it after they noticed the sinking!

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[birge]

Actually, I can't argue with anything you said. The wings just aren't what they used to be!

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Laterite]

You do realize Phoenix is built on at least as much artifice as NOLA, right? Once those dams start filling up with sediment, it's goodbye cheap water and electricity.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Moofie]

If you have issues with the location of New Orleans, you need to take them up with a bunch of Spaniards who have been dead for 200 years or more.

The Army Corps of Engineers is a pretty well-run organization, and not long on the pork and mismanagement that plague most government projects, and all government projects in Louisiana.

If you don't want your tax dollars going to disaster relief, please move to a country that doesn't have natural disasters.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[philo_enyce]

1. New Orleans is a major sea port. It is pretty much THE agricultural export port for the entire United States east of the Rockies. The loss of the port is a major hinderence to not only the national economy, but the world's, since the United States is the world's number one agricultural exporter. The federal government has a duty to maintain the health of the national economy.

so how about taking responsibility and not rebuilding the port in a city doomed to repeated natural disasters?

philo

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[BoldAndBusted]

So, I guess that you'll make an exception and pay real quick like to keep the oil infrastructure disaster coverage federalized? OK, then, what about the roads, bridges, and rail that lead to the oil refineries? OK, then, what about the destroyed schools that give enough (sometimes, *only* enough) education to local people so that they can work on the oil infrastructure - should the feds not pay to help rebuild that?

What I'm trying to impart to you is that you *DO* benefit when other parts of the country outside your own are kept viable and are well insured against future damage. I live in Cali, but I sure do like them Georgia Peaches, Kansas Grains, Pennsylvania Coal, Washington Electricity, etc. etc., and I'd like to know that the people there have can access the aggregated purchasing and logistical power of FEMA when needed. Don't businesses ever waste money? And would the "waste" of the Feds be less than the profit margins of a privatized emergency response infrastructure? And would it be there when it is needed?

Oh, and, yes, I think I'd like to help Denver out when they have flash floods and tornadoes.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

hmmmmm

sounds like yet more reasons why that DUMBASS bush should have balanced the american budget instead of blowing 100's of Billions to fight a war over nonexistant WMD's.

Instead of a half TRILLION dollar deficit every year ... and MANY TRILLIONS of DEBT that your childred can never hope to pay off ... plus thousands dead in a war that has just made you more enemies ... perhaps you would have had money available to deal with the New Orlean's problem before the inevitable happened.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[birge]

First off, federal disaster aid gets spread around. It does not all go to hurricanes. That should be enough of a counter, but for the sake of argument I'm going to pretend what you base your point on is true.

What it gets spent on is irrelevent. That it doesn't really get spread around is the issue. It's basically a money transfer from good places to live to bad places to live.

Assuming that what you want happens, and federal aid for disaster relief becomes a thing of the past, what are the effects? You seem to assert that people will simply not wish to live with the risk, so they'll move. That might apply to a relatively small number of people with the means to move, but what about everyone else, the people lacking not only the means/education/whatever to pick up and move, but also most in need of aid after a disaster?

I think I didn't explain myself very well. I didn't mean to suggest individuals pay the risk alone. That's impossible, and not how things work. I was trying to suggest that the people in the area pool their risk. In other words, on the state and county level. I don't think it's a radical idea to suggest that the people of Florida should pay for Florida's risk.

Anyway, these are just some crazy left wing ideas. You know, that big things might have effects.

You know the world's coming to an end when a liberal is pointing out the notion of unintended consequences! :-) (But I guess you know the world's still in it's place when it's with regard to the unintented consequences of killing a huge government transfer program.)

Anyway, who said I was right wing? I just knew people around here would think my idea was. Remember when being left wing was about being fair to the working class and not wasting money that could be spent on UNavoidable problems? Do you forget in all of your vicarious generosity that the tax money for these huge federal transfer programs comes from the middle class? Do you realize that to a certain extent there are poor people in Virginia paying taxes to rebuild the property of rich business owners in New Orleans?

I know the mental image you have is of a rich guy paying for the clean up, but there just aren't enough of them around to pay for EVERYTHING. Most of our tax money still comes from average joes like me, and quite few below average joes who really can't afford it. A tax that you don't benefit from is ALWAYS a regressive tax since a poor person can less afford to lose a dollar than a rich person can afford to lose a thousand. So if saving the working class some tax money by having a more intelligent location of our population isn't really left wing, I don't know if there are any good wings left to be had.

But you're absolutely right: I have no idea if this can be done without unpredictable consequences. But can't that be said about any change? I guess I'm just more progressive than you.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[chh1]

1997 Red River Flood

In 1997, Grand Forks, North Dakota and East Grand Forks, Minnesota experienced the worst flood of the river since 1826. This caused 2 billion dollars in damage to the community.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Kafir]

I grew up in Cleveland, where the weather is often unpleasant, but never catastrophic. A few feet of snow, the occasional tornado—that's about as bad as it gets. But people still take measures to protect their homes, and to keep the city running. They pay for insurance against fire, they pay taxes to fund local fire departments and snowplows. Paying for snow removal is part of the cost of living along the Great Lakes; they don't expect people in Savannah or San Diego to help pay someone to clear their driveways.

That makes sense to me. And like it or not, dealing with floods and hurricanes is part of the cost of living on the Gulf Coast. It's possible for people to insure their homes against hurricane damage; it would be possible for municipal governments in the South to put aside money for dealing with the aftermath of hurricanes. If they aren't willing to do so, why should people in Cleveland or Detroit or Buffalo (who deal with shitty weather all winter) have to subsidize them? None of those cities has exactly been an economic powerhouse lately. If your only reasoning is that dealing with hurricanes is really, really expensive, I'd say that's all the more reason not to continue providing incentives for people to live in hurricane-prone areas.

Assuming that what you want happens, and federal aid for disaster relief becomes a thing of the past, what are the effects? You seem to assert that people will simply not wish to live with the risk, so they'll move.

As it stands, people are moving out of the Midwest and into the South at a pretty good clip. Maybe if city taxes and home insurance rates were forced to reflect the real costs of living in those areas, that trend would slow down. Maybe not; either way I don't know that it would be a bad thing. I'm not against all disaster relief—if a volcano erupts in the middle of Des Moines tomorrow, some federal money might be a good idea. But hurricanes on the Gulf Coast are about as unexpected as sunny days in Phoenix and snowstorms in Buffalo—and no one expects the Federal government to pay for sunscreen and snow shovels.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[GrumblyStuff]

4. One of the roles of government is doing what others can't do for themselves. The people in Louisiana, Mississippi, and all those along the Gulf Coast, can't clean help themselves. They are our countrymen, and they're in dire need. If you were a civilized individual with any ounce of decency, you'd recognize that.

Call me crazy, but I think we can do better than put them all back into that sinkhole.

Yes, it's a huge port and there's tons of fossil fuel resources that we do need. So let's cancel Operation Iraqi Freedom, bring our troops home, and put them to work using those billions upon billions upon billions that will be saved. Is it worth building and losing another Duck Tales style gold heap (insured damages are at, what, $36 billion?) every time they get a hurricane or the Mississippi floods? God damn it, if the money has to be spent, then let's spend it wisely.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Guppy06]

Oh no, I didn't say "no more taxes," I said "let Louisiana be the one collecting the gas tax." Supporting the nation's gasoline addiction has cost the state a lot of wetlands, and it's only fair that the state pass that burden on to you. The taxes would be the same if not higher, and unless you were a citizen of Louisiana you'd have zero say in the rates, but at least you'd have your precious "no more federal spending!" meme satisfied.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Grishnakh]

Drought, perhaps. We get our water from rivers, so if those rivers dried up, that could be a problem.

Flash floods? No. We get those during monsoon season, and while they do sometimes flood surface streets, we have lots of drainage canals and ditches to handle the bulk of it. Definitely not a problem.

Wildfires? No. Not in the desert at least. We have wildfires sometimes, but it's pretty silly how people overreact to them. They just occur in areas with wild brush where there's no development, and are easily contained. Now up north where the forests are (Prescott, Payson, Show Low, etc.), wildfires can be a serious problem, but that's a totally different climate from the desert.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Grishnakh]

With the ridiculous growth rate we're experiencing, it sometimes seems like all 300 million of the population is moving in with us. :)

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Grishnakh]

Crummy roads? What part of the valley do you live in? I've been here 5 years, and while the roads aren't great everywhere, overall it's much better than just about any other part of the country I've visited. The highways in particular are excellent here, mostly because 1) they're built wide enough to start with, instead of trying to go back later and widen them after they become popular, and 2) the government plans the highways and buys up all the land before development goes in, not after like in most places. Again, there's certainly problems (like I-10 just south of the airport), but compared to most other places I've been (like California, or any place on the east coast), it's not bad at all.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, here's what needs to happen: The government needs to give as much tax relief as it can to everyone, so that those displaced by this disaster can use more of their own money to start helping themselves, and the rest of us can use our own money to help the victims as we see fit. In order to give tax relief without going even further into debt, the government will have to cut spending. And that is exactly what needs to happen. We as a society can't have our cake and eat it too. We have to reduce spending in certain areas in order to have enough money to fund all of this reconstruction.

Now, once everyone has more of their own money back, I'm sure there will be some charity and humanitarian aid voluntarily given to the victims, but that won't be enough to fund the reconstruction. Well, you know what? If you're going to argue that I should help you rebuild your city because it's in my interest to do so, then I want a piece. If you want to rebuild your business, sell me some of your stock. If you can't raise enough money that way, and the insurance companies go bankrupt, then that means you lost your business. I know it's painful, but nothing can replace what mother nature stole from our society. Having the government take money from some states and giving it to others don't remove loss, it just transfers wealth. As others said, we can't mindlessly transfer wealth to disaster-prone areas, because that just means we will have more loss in the future, and if this disaster doesn't illustrate how terrible loss is, I don't know what will.

Also, we shouldn't bail the insurance companies out either. They charged people based on what they calculated the risk to be. If they messed up, then bankruptcy is how the market removes inefficiency. Once insurance companies realize that government won't bail them out in worst-case scenarios, they will charge people more in those situations, and that's what should happen. As others have said, people need to pay the real cost. Allowing them to pay a fake cost, because it's the supposedly "decent" thing to do, just invites people to make bad decisions that will result in more loss in the future.

What we really need to do is slowly get away from government and move towards personal responsibility. Right now, everyone is going to wonder, "Why didn't the authorities have a better plan for this situation?", because that's what we have set society up as. You're not supposed to worry about risk, you're supposed to let other people worry about it for you. Well, I don't think that's a good model. We need to realize that a worst-case scenario is something we all need to think about. Sure, we can depend on the experts to tell us what the best way to protect the city is in the future (i.e. move it to higher ground, or build better pumps, etc.), but whatever the proposal is, it's going to cost money. I'm saying, rather than tax people to raise this money, we should appeal to them and ask them, "How much do you want to give to our common defense against natural disasters?" And you let each person make his or her own decision. Depending on how much money the local population has and how concerned they are, the common defense may go under-funded or it may not. But either way, at least everyone will be aware of the choice they've made, and there won't be any surprises down the road. There will be disagreement among the locals no matter what the outcome is, and some may decide that the majority of people are just taking on too much risk, and they will leave. That's fine, each person must make their own decision. But in the current situation, we just allow the government to take our money and spend it how they see fit, and we get mad at them when they don't make the right choices. Well, they can never make the "right" choices because only we know what each of our personal values are.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Grishnakh]

I believe that's not allowed anymore. I think, in the Carolinas at least, you can expand you buildings on the barrier islands, but if your buildings are destroied, you can't build back, and no new construction is allowed.

That's good to hear. I remember watching a "Fleecing of America" report about it years ago, so I guess my info is a little dated.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that residents of New Orleans "chose" to live there and therefore forfeit the right not only to federal aid but indeed to the parent's compassion is a shallow one.

Most of us do not make our decisions, especially the fundamental cultural choices that define who we are (and where we live), with a matrix of variables and a calculator. Those of us who live in New Orleans love the city for reasons that would doubtless escape someone as soullessly critical as the parent.

Even ignoring the deep emotional and cultural bonds many of us have with America's most European city, one of its oldest, the birthplace of jazz, home of so much of this nation's literature and art, there is the simple fact that not all of us can relocate. If the parent knew anything at all about New Orleans (which I doubt), he'd know that it is poor, filled with individuals who cannot blithley abandon the homes of their forbears as science makes clearer the danger of living there.

Perhaps if he had any roots at all, or connections to anything or anyone that wouldn't fit in a car, he'd be less condescending as people drown and homes burn.

I will not deny, as I watch a tragedy engulf the lives of my fellow citizens and the city whose history certainly justifies its continued existence, even if some see only "jetskiers" in us Cajuns, Creoles, and eccentrics, that the words of the parent hurt me deeply. I eagerly await the inevitable day when he needs help and has to endure the sarcastic, shallow bullshit of some dick on Slashdot. May you suffer mightily, guy.

Mills

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[aralin]

But don't build (or live in) a city like New Orleans (or the population centers along the major CA faults)

Aren't you a smart boy? Lets relocate Los Angeles, San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland and surrounding areas put all these 30 million people to some safer location, like for example, ... where?

So many people need to work to sustain themselves, its not like there would be millions of jobs all over US. But I've got a better news for you, there is very real danger of a great (100+ feet high) tsunami for the whole west coast of atlantic ocean. There is about 100 million people who have a high chance to die when it comes all the way from New York to Rio de Janeiro. Should they all move too? Ok, ... where?

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[zoefff]

In general the highest density of people are found in areas prone to flooding, everyware in the world. Reason is probably economics: flat land, high density of people, easy access to trade routes all contribute to welfare and thus are attracting even more people to the area

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Hachima]

Umm you don't think this would of wiped out people in Arizona if it was inhabited at the time? http://www.meteorcrater.com/

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[ki4iib]

(I'm guessing it's going to take at least past this hurricane season before anything meaningful will happen.)

As a 20-year Northwest Florida resident, I absolutely would not bet on it.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Tycho]

Oh things do happen in North Dakota that taxpayers have had to pay for. The Red River which flows north between Minnesota and North Dakota and up into Canada and Hudson Bay, flooded about a few years ago. The flooding affected Fargo, a small city, among other places on the Red River.

At an aside as a resident of a suburb Minneapolis, Minnesota. We have the largest number of derechos from May to August in the US. A derecho is a long lived fast moving windstorm associated with a thunderstorm. Derechos for the most part are not exceptionally dangerous as like a tornado or hurricane, but a serious event can blow down power lines and trees. In 1998 after a derecho I remember visiting a house in a neighborhood that at one point probably had many large trees. One could determine this as there were many tall stumps that reached ten feet into the air with no branches or leaves.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[zakkie]

Rubbish, you sanctimonious prick. 10-1 you live where you do through sheer luck; probability of being hit by any natural disaster was not likely part of your planning. I assume you also drive only the safest car, eat only guaranteed healthy foods, don't smoke or drink, never take recreational drugs, refuse to board flights in all but the best weather, don't use a cell phone, don't watch TV, don't climb, skydive, or bugee jump, or absolutely anything else that deviates from absolute and complete safety? Shut up and sit down.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Vintermann]

They didn't put the city 17 feet below sea level, the city has been sinking for a long time. And I doubt you would have been so terribly much smarter than all the people who live in the disaster area just because they and their parents always did.

Face it, it could have been you. And share the expenses. We're going to miss that oil infrastructure if nothing else.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[jb.hl.com]

more socialism isn't the answer here.

FFS, people are dying and losing their homes and livelihoods, and you're still worried about the big bad ol' federal gubbinment coming and turning the US red? For fucks sake, are you really so stupid as to place ideology above helping people?

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[virtual_mps]

So, I guess that you'll make an exception and pay real quick like to keep the oil infrastructure disaster coverage federalized?

No, of course not. The oil companies have plenty of financial incentive to rebuild, and the capital to do so.

OK, then, what about the roads, bridges, and rail that lead to the oil refineries? OK, then, what about the destroyed schools that give enough (sometimes, *only* enough) education to local people so that they can work on the oil infrastructure - should the feds not pay to help rebuild that?

Nope, that's local government.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[wibs]

Anyway, who said I was right wing?

You did. Quote from the end of your first post:: "Just a crazy right wing idea."

I'm not a huge fan of left/right labels in general, since I hardly find the Democratic party appealing but feel forced into it due to my revulsion with much of the Republican, but you're the one who brought it into the discussion. I said it as more of a snide comment than for making an actual point, because I guess I'm just a jerk. Sorry..

As for average joes paying taxes - I'm one of them too. There's two sides to me on this - on the one hand, the liberal "let people do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else" side thinks that if you live in a padded room underground, you probably shouldn't have to pay a tax that provides hurricane relief. The other side of me says we're all in this United States, and it doesn't do anybody much good if everybody decides they'd rather opt out of disaster relief funding. I tell you, it's hard to try and keep a realistic view of the world when everywhere you look you're being forced to polarize, but I think the best I can put it is that I pay my taxes, and I wish they were lower, but some things are just worth supporting even if they don't directly affect me.

Do you realize that to a certain extent there are poor people in Virginia paying taxes to rebuild the property of rich business owners in New Orleans?

Yes. And I support that. I could get into that in detail, but I think it's enough to say that if the rich Virginian's taxes are going to help some poor guy in New Orleans, why shouldn't any other Virginian's? I have one of those "we're all in this together" viewpoints which is far from universal. If things were to change to a flat tax my stance would change, but that's a different issue.

But you're absolutely right: I have no idea if this can be done without unpredictable consequences. But can't that be said about any change? I guess I'm just more progressive than you.

I'd agree with that. Big changes scare me. They're not inherently bad - the exodus from the south I mentioned in my previous post exposed the blues to the world, after all. It just seems to me that your method of making people accountable for risk has tremendous potential to cause social, political, and economic shifts that may be far from positive. Seems just as risky to minimize the risk as to set aside a bit of funding for it.

You know what's kind of weird, I actually had to think a little before writing this. I'm not sure that's ever happened to me on slashdot before.

You know the world's coming to an end when a liberal is pointing out the notion of unintended consequences!

Looking for unintended consequences is pretty much my job, so it's only natural it would seep into my political views :).

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[virtual_mps]

Most of us do not make our decisions, especially the fundamental cultural choices that define who we are (and where we live), with a matrix of variables and a calculator. Those of us who live in New Orleans love the city for reasons that would doubtless escape someone as soullessly critical as the parent.

That's all fine--as long as you pay for it yourself.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[wibs]

If your only reasoning is that dealing with hurricanes is really, really expensive, I'd say that's all the more reason not to continue providing incentives for people to live in hurricane-prone areas.

The more I think about it, that does seem to be the one huge qualifier for me. Hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes - they're freakin expensive. I used to live in Colorado and have spent more than a few days shovelling a hole through the snow to the world, without even the thought of receiving federal aid, but to be honest that just seems absurd. Adults miss some work, kids miss some school, maybe a few unlucky drivers die, but the thought of comparing that to a hurricane hitting New Orleans just seems absurd to me.

Actually, that anyone thinking federal aid for a hurricane hitting New Orleans doesn't warrant disaster relief is rather hard for me to wrap my head around.

Also hard for me to understand... If I follow your argument correctly, is the final goal the complete depopulation of California, Alaska, Maine, and anywhere within hurricane distance of the Gulf of Mexico? That's just, well, inconceivable.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[westlake]

Most people are fairly smart, at least smart enough not to live by choice directly on a major geologic fault line (or in a city below sea level on a coastline known for hurricanes, or in an arctic wasteland, etc).

You build a port where you can land an ocean-going vessel, ideally, at the mouth of a navigable river that provides deep penetration inland.

Geography defines what is possible, not what is safe.

The natural flow of trade in the central United States is defined by the Ohio, Missouri and Mississippi, with the terminus in New Orleans.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[SteveX]

Literally millions are homeless? The total population of New Orleans is less than half a million people.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[birge]

The feds? Who are these feds, and where do they get their money from? Pentagon bake sales?

Replace the word feds with "people of Chicago" and you'll see that your argument looks a little less impressive. Replace it with "working class of St. Paul" and it looks even worse. There are no feds, just people.

Anyway, don't put words into my mouth, Fidel. I never said we don't help people when they need it. I was suggesting we do something to make sure they don't need it. That is, either rebuild the cities elsewhere, or have localities in dangerous areas pay for their own risk. My thinking is that it would motivate them to be better prepared, and would be more fair to taxpayers in the rest of the country.

But I never said we don't help people once a trajedy occurs. Reread my post and you'll see your arguing somebody elses argument.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[coaxial]

Captain Obvious to the Rescue! The disaster occured in a much larger area than just the city of New Orleans proper.

New Orleans has 1.3 million in the metropolitan area. The brunt of the storm hit Biloxi, MS and the Gulf Coast of Mississippi and Alabama. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that an excess of 700,000 people lost their homes outside of metro New Orleans. Thus bringing my incredible underestimation to 2 million, and two is definately plural.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[cloudmaster]

All that volcanic rock surrounding the mountain you just built your house on - well, it's a clue. Though 10K years of dormancy is a good indicator that my anticipated 75 year lifespan won't see another. :)

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[glorinc]

I question whether you truly visited New Orleans. If you had, you would realize that this city has immense cultural significance to the USA. Did you ever see Cafe du Monde? Jean Lafitte's? Preservation Hall? The surrounding swamps? Jackson Square (including the Jackson Square Breakdancers)? Any of the surrounding plantations? Have you been to Mardi Gras? Or Jazz Fest?

My check is already in the mail.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[angeles13]

I'm in downtown and commute to North Scottsdale. I take the 51 every morning and that particular one is a nightmare - wasn't built correctly the first time (it used to have a traffic signal at Thomas and the 51 - the start up the freeway again on either side.)

There are other roads that were cut off when the freeways were finally build that were great because you used to be able to by pass the major arteries and still get from one side of town to the other.

Generally, I don't think we have the massive potholes since there is not freeze/thaw here but flooding every time there is rain - that is something that the cities don't want to plan in (one of my neighbor's works for Phx Strt Dept).

oh - and you missed the huge arguements on the buyouts for the 51. That was great politics as usual (not).

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Secrity]

1. The feasibility of either moving the port a bit upstream or doing a satellite port system should be explored.

2 and 3. Most of the affected areas of the Gulf Coast needs the normal post disaster rescue, cleanup and repair; which Americans are experienced and good at doing.

New Orleans is a totally different situation. Most of New Orleans is now either at the bottom of the newly expanded Lake Pontchartrain or on it's way to becoming marsh land.

I would support the US government buying some of the former New Orleans metropolitan area to create the New Orleans National Park and then cleaning up and reclaiming the area as lake, marsh and wet lands. The New Orleans National Park could also preserve the French Quarter and possibly other historicly important areas.

4. The role of the government during disasters is to provide immediate aid and to help clean up to prevent the spread of disease. I agree that the New Orleans refugees are in dire need and I fully support the US Government doing everything necessary to rescue people, and to provide emergency medical care, food, water, and temporary shelter. The government could also provide the New Orleans refugees either a one-way bus ticket to anywhere in the US or if they have a car, a $200 grant to buy gasoline. There are existing federal, state, and local programs to provide food and shelter for the longer term until the New Orleans refugees can be reabsorbed into the American population.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Cris E]

Well, for small values of 'ever' anyway. In 1997 the Red River flooded and destroyed a lot of small and medium towns in ND and MN. Fargo-Morehead was flooded pretty badly. At one point it was flooded and snowing with ice floating in the streets with buildings on fire from gas leaks. There were some great pictures of firetrucks on flatbeds being hauled thru the water, and eventually they even tried using planes from the forest service to fight the fire. A sample of the coverage can be found here http://www.cnn.com/WEATHER/9704/20/flood/index.htm l.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[mrcubehead]

You can also significantly lower your chances of being in a fatal car accident by not driving a car. In other words, I think the key here is _managing_ risk, not trying to remove it entirely. Financially, you can usually just pay a risk premium (that is proportional to the probability of the event occuring) to transfer some or all of the risk exposure to another party, who can then subdivide it and spread it across other parties in turn (think reinsurance industry with stockholders); this system works, however, many victims come up with the short end of the deal because they have seriously mismanaged their risk exposure. I think preemptively helping people manage risk - financially or otherwise - is the best way to mitigate disaster, but you just can't implement drastic solutions that try to prevent disaster in the first place.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Prophet of Nixon]

I dunno about jetskis, since those things seriously suck, but taking a small sailboat (like a laser) out into the Mobjack Bay during the day before a hurricane (granted, they are weak when they are this far North) or major storm is pretty awesome. For some reason the water stays fairly flat (it swells a lot, but isn't choppy), but the wind is steady and strong. Its just about the best sailing weather there is. Only thing you gotta watch out for is the microbursts that come up sometimes, but there's a fair amount of warning on those and enough time to temporarily scuttle the boat. Being around a bay or river during a storm is neat around here anyway since all the phosphorescent bacteria and algae light up when the real low pressure hits and the bad stuff starts. And good stuff (like arrowheads) washes up on the sandbars after one too.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[ifwm]

No one is proposing that they move, rather that they pay for the higher costs of inhabiting a more dangerous area.

And not a marginally higher cost, but one that accurately reflects the danger that they may face.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[ifwm]

You did. Quote from the end of your first post:: "Just a crazy right wing idea."

No, he said his IDEA was right wing. READ the post please.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[ifwm]

"but I can't think of any natural disasters ever to hit Arizona,"

Drought, you asstalker. (reminds me of Ace Ventura)

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[MemeRot]

So where is a safe place to live? East coast - hurricanes. West coast - earthquakes. Midwest - tornadoes. New England - 4' of snow. Alaska - 8' of snow. Hawaii - volcanoes.

Where exactly is safe?

And exactly how much money will be spent on this disaster relief effort, as a percentage of the cost of the Iraq war? 2%? Maybe? If you're complaining about federal spending, look at the military first.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[ifwm]

A port is not the same thing as a city. Living there is completely avoidable, while doing business there may not be.

And more to the point, if we required businesses to pay exorbitant fees to use such dangerous areas, few people would complain. If we did the same for homeowners, the howling would be unbearable.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[MemeRot]

as long as you have water to drink

And where are you getting that water from? From neighboring states that didn't used to mind, but are now asserting their water rights more often. No you won't get many natural disasters, but saying "Hey, let's all live in the desert" isn't a viable option, there isn't enough water to go around.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[ifwm]

But currently, the premium isn't proportional to the risk, otherwise no additional funding would be required.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[birge]

You did. Quote from the end of your first post:: "Just a crazy right wing idea.

I know. I said right wing idea. I'm not an idea, I'm a person. I've got plenty of ideas that are left of Jerry Brown, and a few that are right of Reagan. And one or two in between. So I really like what you said about there being too much polarization.

There's two sides to me on this...

I feel the same way and have the same conflict. On one hand, I hate to see people suffer. On the other hand, I'm not sure government is the most fair and efficient way to alleviate suffering. I'm also uncomfortable with the way government largess comes at the expense of liberty. But if I could know for certain it were the only way, I'd probably be a passionate socialist.

I have one of those "we're all in this together" viewpoints which is far from universal.

Ok, you got me there. I was trying to bait you, assuming you were for the rich paying for everything (which seems to be prevalent among the left, except for me and you). In truth, I agree that even the poor should pay taxes, at least in proportion to what they can afford. It's not good for only the rich to have a stake in the government, and I'm not sure why Democrats don't understand that.

Seems just as risky to minimize the risk as to set aside a bit of funding for it.

I wish I could prove that it wasn't, but to be honest it's only my best guess. I just think society tends to work best when people look out for themselves and are at least somewhat accountable for their actions. But that's not always best, and shouldn't be taken too far or people fall through the cracks, so I don't know if I'm going too far in this instance. Anyway, thanks for a great discussion.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[ifwm]

Fine, in order

1. Rebuild the port because we need it. I agree it's important, but there is NO reason to rebuild the residences, or help anyone pay to do so. A port is not a city, they can exist without each other.

2. You're making things up. Not all of Louisiana was destroyed, so claiming things like "Louisiana doesn't have tax base anymore" is ridiculous.

3. I agree here. You get help in this area ONE TIME. If you still choose to risk it, it's on you.

4. Another of the roles of gevernment is preventing people from taking unnecessary risks. See all the helmet, seatbelt, sanitation laws etc. I consider that to be a more important consideration than rebuilding a city in a place where it will inevitably be destroyed again.

"If you were a civilized individual with any ounce of decency, you'd recognize that."

And you expect people to find you credible when you converse like this?

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[birge]

If you think Boston is as prone to disaster as Gulfport, you either have no memory or never read the news. In my 30 years on the planet, I've never seen any East Coast city evacuated. The South East coastal cities get evacuated more often than an elementary school during drill week.

Anyway, I really hate the argument: 'Well, we do stupid thing A, so quit complaining about B.' That's a sorry argument, and it only leads to stupid thing C.

Yeah, I hate the war, too. But if you're not going to address what I said, don't waste your time writing.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[mrcubehead]

I agree with you; I should have said, the premium should be proportional to the _expected_ risk. This is also a loose definition though, but I'm just trying to illustrate that there are other ways of managing disaster than trying to prevent it.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[MemeRot]

You live in Boston? I assume you are familiar with the federally supported Big Dig http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article431 8.html/, which has so far cost $14,600,000,000.00? 14 billion dollars for a road?

Why the hell should the federal government pay for a freaking ROAD in Boston, which it hasn't needed for the past two hundred years, and they shouldn't pay for food, shelter, and clean water for citizens who have just had their life savings and home destroyed?

If you're serious, why don't you propose that Boston impose a 30% sales tax increase to pay for its own road and give the money back to the feds? I'm sure they could resettle a lot fo people from New Orleans for that amount of money.

By the way, I live near DC, and DC and Alexandria have had several problems with flooding due to hurricanes in the past few years. Not 'evacuate' problems, but problems that cost a lot of money.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[glsunder]

is it not true? Wouldnt the money spent on the gulf war be better spent here? Or perhaps not spent at all so we weren't in debt quite so much?

Since when did "live within your means" become something that only applies to those on the left? The US "right" is every bit as socialist as the left, they just spend it on different things and hand it out to different people. The neo-cons certainly didn't leave the spending part of liberalism behind.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[SteveX]

Not all of New Orleans is under water. Not every home is destroyed. But hey if millions makes you happy, millions it is.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[nester]

One of the roles of government is doing what others can't do for themselves.

Since when?

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Guysmiley777]

That was actually in Grand Forks, ND. Fargo-Moorhead is further south, and since the Red River flows north, at a higher elevation. The flooding in Fargo wasn't as bad, mostly limited to new, rich homes on the outskirts of town past the dikes (which I helped to sandbag).

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, I live down in Chandler, and things seem to be very different down here. The 202 seems to have been planned out long in advance, and is going in pretty smoothly.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[pclminion]

True. But only a moron builds on a fault. Or in the immediate danger area of a volcano. Or in a flood plain. Or really needs a study to figure out what will happen if it lets loose :)

You don't have to be a moron, just ignorant. The city of Tacoma in Washington is built on the deposits of massive lahars from Mt. Rainier -- lahars that flowed very recently, in fact. Tacoma can and will be buried tens of feet in something similar to natural concrete, one day.

It's not because the founders of Tacoma were morons, it's because they didn't know about this stuff when they built the city.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[pclminion]

Maybe people, in the future, should pay for their own risks, the same way the rest of us do. Just a crazy right wing idea.

So you're advocating an "every man for himself" United States? I don't think we can call ourselves a civilized society, if people suffer and die when there are resources that could help them out.

Going back to disaster prone areas again and again may be stupid, but I don't think the answer is to allow the victims to wallow and die. What the fuck sort of civilized country allows that?

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Kafir]

If you build a house by Lake Erie, you're going to have to shovel some snow. The federal government doesn't help you. If you build a house in the caldera of Kilauea, it's going to burn down or be encased in lava on a daily basis. The federal government still shouldn't help you—you should move somewhere safer. Clearly the Gulf Coast is somewhere in between, but I'd apply the same thinking—if the costs of living somewhere can be paid by the people who live there, they should be. If it's impractical to expect anyone to live there without external subsidies, they should probably move.

Do you honestly believe that the probable cost of damage due to natural disasters in Florida/California/Alaska/wherever over the next, say, ten years, exceeds the probable economic product of the state over that period?

If California is capable of paying for its own problems, let it. I think it is. If you think California is incapable of maintaining itself, then yes, it should probably be depopulated, rather than exist as a permanent economic drain on the rest of the country. (As it is, the population of LA increases by 25 people each day, while the population of Detroit decreases by two. California could raise its taxes quite a bit before it managed to stop growing, let alone depopulate itself.)

I'm not saying they shouldn't send federal troops in to help save lives—but federal money to rebuild homes and businesses? You can lose a home to fire in Cleveland, so you get fire insurance. If you live in California, get earthquake insurance. Live on the floodplain of the Mississippi? Get flood insurance. Don't expect a guy who lives in Detroit and may not have seen an ocean in years to help pay when your coastal home washes away.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[swelke]

You mean like the big flood that hit here in Grand Forks, North Dakota in 1997? The one that took out a few dozen square blocks of the city,and while the streets were flooded, a good chunk of downtown burned out? Nope, nothing ever happens in North Dakota.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[GWBasic]

Practically all Californian structures are built to withstand earthquakes. After living in CA and MA, I've found that the effort that it takes to clean up after MA's blizzards is much more then the big earthquakes in CA that we've seen in the past 20 years.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[poulbailey]

That was a fucking great posting. Kudos.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[wibs]

I know. I said right wing idea. I'm not an idea, I'm a person. I've got plenty of ideas that are left of Jerry Brown, and a few that are right of Reagan. And one or two in between. So I really like what you said about there being too much polarization.

Let's put this to rest. I never called you right wing, or even put the words "right" and "wing" together aside from when I quoted you. I called my own ideas left wing, tongue-in-cheek style, and that's the end of it.

On the other hand, I'm not sure government is the most fair and efficient way to alleviate suffering.

I'd have to agree. I don't think our government is the most fair and efficient way to do much of anything. Despite this, it is often more fair and more efficient than doing nothing.

I wish I could prove that it wasn't, but to be honest it's only my best guess.

Which pretty much describes how even the most informed people look at these things, and definitely describes me.

Anyway, thanks for a great discussion.

Yes, it was nice to have one with minimal bickering :).

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[birge]

You sure you wanna go there? The big dig is pretty much a Democrat project, with cost overruns provided by unions and regulation (and I'm guessing some nice corruption from the local old-school democrats running Boston).

Anyway, I really hate the argument: 'Well, we do stupid thing A, so quit complaining about B.' That's a sorry argument, and it only leads to stupid thing C.

Yeah, I hate the war^H^H^Hbig dig, too. But if you're not going to address what I said, don't waste your time writing.

P.S. Yeah, it's a lot of money, but it's SO COOL. You should come on over and check out the road you helped buy. It's a whole highway that goes under a city. How neato is that? Anyway, it's there for the whole country to use enroute through New England. (You know, building an interstate is a *bit* different from rebuilding a person's private property.) But, yeah, it's way overpriced. Oddly enough, if Boston were wiped off the map by a hurricane, in the long run it would actually *save* the country a lot of money. Plus, nobody would be all that upset to see Harvard under water. ;-)

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[MemeRot]

I think rescuing citizens who are drowning is a definite government imperative. Building a 14 billion dollar road is not, foreign adventure wars are not.

We haven't yet spent a cent rebuilding New Orleans, only on search and rescue. When they get it drained in about a month, I'm sure people will be talking about 'how do we make sure this never happens again'. Definitely a cost effective idea to prevent it happening again. I don't know the best way to go about that. You cannot close down one of our largest ports. There will always be a city of some kind there. How they go about preventing a reoccurence I don't know, but I doubt that they'll take the approach of forcibly resettling every resident to boston or arizona. By the way there are also large government structures in New Orleans and Mississippi wiped out - interstates amongh them. It's not just people's houses.

My point about the big expenditures in the war/big dig wasn't that they were ok. It was that they were more stupid than what FEMA does. Go after the biggest, stupidest wastes of money first. FEMA's not that bad a waste of money. We have natural disasters of some sort every year. We've had one major terrorist attack, ever. But where do the dollars go? All to homeland security.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Minna Kirai]

Why the hell should the federal government pay for a freaking ROAD in Boston, which it hasn't needed for the past two hundred years, and they shouldn't pay for food, shelter, and clean water for citizens who have just had their life savings and home destroyed?

Given that federal taxes already go to local road projects, it's only fair. Even taking that ludicrously bloated project into account, Massachusetts has still given out far more federal highway taxes than it has recieved.

If you're serious, why don't you propose that Boston impose a 30% sales tax increase

Effectively, that is what happened, since the Big Dig was paid for with just a partial refund of MA's federal taxes.

So if you want to attack the propriety of the Big Dig spending, you've got to do it as an assault on the principle of national money for local improvements as a whole. And for that subject, Don Young's Way is a better example than the Big Dig (which at least will service millions of non-MA residents annually)

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[coaxial]

Since humans came together and form a civilization.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[coaxial]

Your long history of one line snarky repsonses has done you well. As has your inordinate focus on a small part of an entire regional disaster.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[coaxial]

2. You're making things up. Not all of Louisiana was destroyed, so claiming things like "Louisiana doesn't have tax base anymore" is ridiculous.

You don't seem to understand that the most productive part of Louisiana was the part that was destroyed. The oil. The sugar cane. The tourism. The major commerce port. So yeah your right. They have 10% of their tax base. They should just suck it up and start saving those pennys, and maybe in a few years they'll have enough to collect all the bodies.

And you expect people to find you credible when you converse like this?

I forgot. This is slashdot. We're all supposed to advocate the destruction of civilization because humans should live as solitary animals that care nothing about their own kind. Yeah. That's a much more credible sentiment.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Scudsucker]

We never get natural disasters here: hurricanes, tornados, tsunamis, earthquakes, ice/snow storms, etc.

Tornadoes can happen anywhere on the planet, not just in Kansas. Besides, Arizona could always get nailed by a second one of these.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Grishnakh]

They can, but they usually don't. We get "dust devils" all the time; they look like little mini-tornados, but all they do is stir up some dust, and at the most, blow around leaves or paper. But we never get real tornados, probably because there's not enough moisture in the air.

We do occasionally get microbursts which can destroy houses, but their destruction is extremely confined (usually to just one house).

Any place can get a meteor impact, but if one hits, it'll probably take out most of a continent, if not the whole planet (because of climate change). So if you're trying to compare regions by their relative dangerousness due to natural disasters, meteors won't even affect the comparison since most points on the planet are equally likely to be impacted.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Scudsucker]

Any place can get a meteor impact, but if one hits, it'll probably take out most of a continent, if not the whole planet (because of climate change).

Not necessarily. It would be perfectly possible for a meteor to be of sufficient size to wipe out Phoenix but not the entire Southwest.

meteors won't even affect the comparison since most points on the planet are equally likely to be impacted.

Which was my point: there is no area that can be safe from disasters. But while Arizona might be safer than other places, it's not really feasible to move 300 million people to a state that has to borrow water from other states to support it's existing population.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[birge]

We have natural disasters of some sort every year. We've had one major terrorist attack, ever. But where do the dollars go? All to homeland security.

I have to admit, that's a damn good point. I think some of that is because we're playing catchup with homeland security and already have programs for disaster relief. But I think you're right that we're already way out of proportion.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Grishnakh]

This is obviously all hypothetical, but of course no place is perfectly safe from disasters, but that doesn't mean you should just ignore it altogether and go live someplace that floods every year with certainty, or something like that. That's like deciding you're going to leave your Mercedes' windows open and doors unlocked with the keys inside because it isn't possible to completely protect against theft. It's defeatist and insane.

As for moving populations to the desert, I don't actually want 300 million people moving here (it's crowded enough as it is), but if, for instance, everyone from southern california decided to move to arizona, the water wouldn't be a problem because the water that they were all using over there (and a lot of it coming from the same sources we get it from) could all be piped over here instead. There might be some engineering challenges in piping enough water in, but there's a lot of engineering challenges in trying to protect against hurricanes too, and I imagine moving water is somewhat easier than that.

I'm not an expert on the water situation here, but another poster said that most of the water here is used by agriculture (and in a wasteful fashion), so if that were fixed, we probably wouldn't have a lot of these water problems.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[DerekLyons]

Instead of a half TRILLION dollar deficit every year ... and MANY TRILLIONS of DEBT that your childred can never hope to pay off ... plus thousands dead in a war that has just made you more enemies ... perhaps you would have had money available to deal with the New Orlean's problem before the inevitable happened.

Probably not. The systems New Orleans need to really and truly protect themselves will take decades to build. (They've been at it a century already - without what was already built, the flooding would be *much* worse.)

We now stop putting facts into the discussion and return you to your rants.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[ifwm]

"I forgot. This is slashdot. We're all supposed to advocate the destruction of civilization because humans should live as solitary animals that care nothing about their own kind. Yeah. That's a much more credible sentiment."

So, when I call you on being rude, you respond with sarcasm, but fail to admit you were a jerk.

So, no you did NOT forget this was slashdot, as you did exactly what all the other slashbots do.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[techno-vampire]

The federal government is there, in part, to do things that no one state government can do, or that benefits more than one state. In this case, Louisiana couldn't possibly afford the needed disaster relief, so it's appropriate for the feds to step in. Rebuilding the city somewhere else may sound like a good idea, but in the short run, it's impractical. We need a place for those people to live and work, and we need it now, not in ten or fifteen years. The only place we can get that is on the current site of New Orleans, and that's where it's going to be.

I hope for your sake that when wherever you live has its disaster (Not if, when; they happen everywhere.) people are more charitable and generous than you are, although you clearly don't deserve it. I also hope that the metamoderators decide that the +1 Insightful point is Unfair, because what you wrote has no insight, just short-sighted greedy selfishness.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Scudsucker]

This is obviously all hypothetical, but of course no place is perfectly safe from disasters, but that doesn't mean you should just ignore it altogether and go live someplace that floods every year with certainty, or something like that. That's like deciding you're going to leave your Mercedes' windows open and doors unlocked with the keys inside because it isn't possible to completely protect against theft. It's defeatist and insane.

Sure, but I can't think of anyone who that would apply to, aside from rich people who really want their waterfront property. But how many times has New Orleans flooded remotely this badly? All we should need are some good building codes and a dose of common sense, and not go hog wild one way or the other.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[coaxial]

So, when I call you on being rude, you respond with sarcasm, but fail to admit you were a jerk.

Is it a jerk to call someone out for being selfish bastard? I think not. I stand by my statement, and I would say it to his face if he was here to today.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Atsi Otani]

True. But only a moron builds on a fault. Or in the immediate danger area of a volcano. Or in a flood plain. Or really needs a study to figure out what will happen if it lets loose :)

Heh. I guess all of us in Japan are morons.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

you want facts?

those decades you speak of would be the time period where they knew more had to be done, but spent the money elsewhere, like on killing 100,000+ innocent civillians in Iraq that didnt want any american 'liberation'.

What kind of fool builds a pumping system where all the pumps run on the same power grid with no independant back-up ... where the pumps themselves can easily be flooded!!! Each flooded pump makes the job more desparate for the rest.

I'm no engineer but I know damn well that they could easily have built cement Kasons with walls higher than the levees, to house the pumps with back up generators with a large fuel supply, allowing them to be at the right elevation, independantly powered, and be immune to flooding.

Dubyafucker said on TV yesturday that 'no one could have anticipated a disaster like this'

no one ... ya, i'm in Canada, never been to New Orleans and I've been aware of the inevitability of the flood for years.

That century you speak of is the time period where they could have built the damn city elsewhere! In fact I find it hard to have any sympathy for the victims, they've simply repeated the actions of millions of others througout history that knew their destruction was waiting around the corner and chose to ignore it.

But what can you expect. The victims have decided that its more important to shoot each other and steal items without even having a home to put them in rather try to help the injured.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[DerekLyons]

I'm no engineer but I know damn well that they could easily have built cement Kasons with walls higher than the levees, to house the pumps with back up generators with a large fuel supply, allowing them to be at the right elevation, independantly powered, and be immune to flooding.

You should have stopped right after 'engineer'. Do you have any clue how much fuel it would take to run those pumps long enough to empty the city? (Think tanks the size of a small blimp - per pump.)

Dubyafucker said on TV yesturday that 'no one could have anticipated a disaster like this'

And he's correct. This was a cat 5 storm - which is *very* rare. Furthermore, the sections of the levees that failed were those least expected to - every one of them recently reinforced.

That century you speak of is the time period where they could have built the damn city elsewhere!

In some fantasy world, yes. Here in the real world the needs of commerce and economics drive where cities are located. If we moved New Orleans elsewhere, Newer Orleans would have been built in it's place.

In fact I find it hard to have any sympathy for the victims, they've simply repeated the actions of millions of others througout history that knew their destruction was waiting around the corner and chose to ignore it.

Welcome to the real world - there's no place immune to disasters of one form or another.

you want facts?

You don't seem to have any to spare - your shortage is obvious.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Fucking ignorant asshole. Just have to pretend you are right instead of admitting the US government chose to throw away the lives of the victims by not taking obvious and easy preparation years ago. No doubt you'd be one of the armed looters shooting at the rescue teams if you were at ground zero right now.

1. The pumps dont need a supply big enough to drain the city to have been a help, even keeping the water level down for longer would have allowed more of the stubborn bastards who didnt leave before the storm to get out after, the water level would have peaked much later. By being in kasons, the pumps would be usable right now simply by getting fuel to them. But no, right now all the pumps are effectively destroyed, requiring a full overhaul to do any pumping even if they could be pulled above the water level. You have NOTHING to drain the city with right now because of bad planning.

2. Cat 5 hurricanes are NOT rare, they have been happening more and more often in the last 15 years. Regardless it has been known for a century that New Orleans would one day be hit. 100 Years is plenty of time for a Cat 5 to occur on them, there is no excuse for not being prepared. Call your local city office, you will find that local flood control measures generally take into account 200 to 400 year flood events, not 100 year events. THE LEVEES WERE ONLY DESIGNED FOR A CAT 3 HURRICANE ANYWAYS!

3. You are living in the fantasy world. The flood was absolutely enevitable and an absolutely known and understood risk on a scale that scientists have screamed about for decades. Most everywhere else in the developed world you can not build in areas of such risk ... but in Louisiana the people happily stare at dynamite with a lit fuse believing it will never blow.

4. Welcome to the Blatantly Obvious Club! ... exept that you still chose to ignore the fact that the flood was absolutely known to be enevitable, and they absolutely knew they were not prepared ... and chose to stay unprepared. I hope the fools in New Orleans don't move to San Francisco, I'd hate to see all the earthquake building codes repealed because 'the big one' may not happen for a few years.

Where was the planning?

The US federal government ONLY JUST NOW is trying to locate any empty government facilities and community buildings that can house the victims. They new the flood of this scale was going to hit one day, but they didnt keep a catalogue of facilities. Neither did the states, neither did the counties.

A federal official had proposed that now they should try to locate school busses to be brought in to help evacuate people ... NO PLANS had been made before hand to deal with the logistics of bringing in not only the school busses, but every available bus of every type from surrounding states. Damn! Here in Vancouver BC, we had full logistics settled and garaunteed by the bus companies for the 100,000's of visitors for the 2010 olympics TWO YEARS before we even knew we would host the olympics!

It's been well over a decade since New Orleans realized that their levees were not strong enough and not tall enough.

There's been more planning put into political spin and photo-shoots for Bush than anything else.

Canada keeps a 'rainy day' fund in case of natural disasters, many of the provinces do as well ... yet the US government has had to rush a spending bill through to free up some money to help, wasting 2 days so far.

Our Prime Minister has called Bush, telling him to ask for anything and we will send it ... troops, food, medicine, water, clothes ... and Bush said 'No, I'd like to wait and see how it goes'. Canada was allowed to send a unique core of search and rescue troops from Vancouver BC, designed specifically for large disasters like this, but only because they are unique, something even the US doesn't have. We have been prepared to help even though your country keeps s

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[John Harrison]

"their oil"? That is an odd way of putting it. You mean to say that the feds are stealing oil from LA? You've lost me. How does the federal gas tax hurt LA? This is the dumbest comment that I've ever seen modded up to +5 on /.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[DerekLyons]

Fucking ignorant asshole. Just have to pretend you are right instead of admitting the US government chose to throw away the lives of the victims by not taking obvious and easy preparation years ago.

Oh? And what obvious and easy preparations were those? Moving the city? Nearly impossible as I stated before. Building up the levees? That's been in progress for over a century.

The pumps dont need a supply big enough to drain the city to have been a help, even keeping the water level down for longer would have allowed more of the stubborn bastards who didnt leave before the storm to get out after, the water level would have peaked much later.

The pumps in New Orleans can remove between an inch and two inches of water a day - the net savings in time amounts to about an hour over the last three days. (In fact, it amounts to less than that because most of the pumps discharge into the lake - which is where the flooding is coming from in the first place.)

Cat 5 hurricanes are NOT rare, they have been happening more and more often in the last 15 years.

And compared to the last century - we haven't even hit the average. For hurricanes that hit the US in total - the last ten years have been 60% or *less* of the century average, and that number has been declining across the last ten years.

You are living in the fantasy world. The flood was absolutely enevitable and an absolutely known and understood risk on a scale that scientists have screamed about for decades. Most everywhere else in the developed world you can not build in areas of such risk ...

ROTFLMAO. Let's just start with the Netherlands - then most of the Rhine valley, then most of the Rhone valley, the Paris and the Seine, then Venice and the areas around it. And that's just in Europe!.

exept that you still chose to ignore the fact that the flood was absolutely known to be enevitable, and they absolutely knew they were not prepared ... and chose to stay unprepared.

Only in some fantasy dream world of yours.

A federal official had proposed that now they should try to locate school busses to be brought in to help evacuate people ... NO PLANS had been made before hand to deal with the logistics of bringing in not only the school busses, but every available bus of every type from surrounding states. Damn! Here in Vancouver BC, we had full logistics settled and garaunteed by the bus companies for the 100,000's of visitors for the 2010 olympics TWO YEARS before we even knew we would host the olympics!

When you can get anyone two years of advance notice of exactly where busses will survive and where the roads will be intact after a major storm - you'll have a point.

Our Prime Minister has called Bush, telling him to ask for anything and we will send it ... troops, food, medicine, water, clothes ... and Bush said 'No, I'd like to wait and see how it goes'.

The UN has also offered to send aid, troops, etc ... and Bush has said no. He'd rather not be put in the position of having to respect the UN for the first time in his life.

Unlike you, I've actually dealt with emergency situations and studied emergency management, and just like President Bush, I'd have done the same thing. The last thing you need in a mass casualty is people who you don't know, can't house, can't support, and don't know how you are going to use in the first place crowding into an already limited area. It takes time to identify what is needed and to get it into place. Those teams are far more useful standing by than sucking up already scarce resources standing around the disaster area.

Canada was allowed to send a unique core of search and rescue troops fr

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Gr8Apes]

I'm speaking in the sense of the collective here. If those that could did not choose to live under sea level, then those that "have no choice" according to you wouldn't be able to live under sea level either, because it wouldn't be there.

I'm also stating that they should not rebuild the city in its present location. Move it to a safer location, or at least not one that's doomed for a repeat.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[The Angry Mick]

The city was not built 17 feet below sea level.

When it was founded in 1718, the site was selected because it was one of the few areas of high ground that could be found on the banks of the Mississippi. The parts that are below sea-level got that way because of expansion and subsidence from the increased weight brought to bear because of that expansion - which, in turn, brought about increased national economic expansion.

Take New Orleans out of the picture, and your federal tax burden will increase, with or without any of it going to solely to disaster aid. Food costs will rise, gas prices will stay high, and export revenues will collapse. The city is just too important to write off as a bad investment. Like it or not, it will be rebuilt.

Blaming it on a politician is a joke?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Blaming it on Bush is a joke. The levees haven't been properly funded for decades."

Kinda like counterterrorism and intelligence funding and blaming it on Clinton eh?

Re:Blaming it on a politician is a joke?

[Lehk228]

yes because everyone is blaming the terrorist problems on clinton... oh wait you are just a moron

Re:Blaming it on a politician is a joke?

[Lehk228]

yes theey are indeed morons, stupidity is not limited to either side, i would go as far as to sayit prevails on both sides

prevention?

[StarvingSE]

"...and what can be done to prevent and/or lessen such disasters in the future?"

Um... stop living in a coastal town that is below sea level and is prone to hurricanes???? But thats just me....

Helicopter flyover video

[Kremit]

I posted a torrent to the helicopter flyover video of New Orleans (from a news station earlier today) in the other hurricane-related discussion:

http://wrpn.net/~kremit/files/wgno26flyover.wmv.to rrent

It's about 46 minutes long and in Windows Media format (I didn't create it and didn't feel like converting it).

Re:Helicopter flyover video

[Motherfucking Shit]

Thank you very much for seeding this video. It's more than worth the time that it takes to watch. Several clips from this footage were co-opted by the national media, in particular the images of the Hyatt with its OKC-Murrah-esque looking window blowouts. It's painful but also enlightening to see the more in depth video.

I'll be leaving my copy of Burst up until my next reboot (several days to a week) with this file available, and I'm putting it on Gnutella as "Hurricane Katrina Damage Video - WGNO TV New Orleans Aerial Footage.wmv" if anyone wants to download it there. Please don't take down the seed.

Re:Helicopter flyover video

[Kremit]

I have the seed running on my desktop system right now... I'll move it over to my mirror server and keep it up as long as I can. Thanks!

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[bogie]

You know what? I completely agree. Jokes about it may be in poor taste, but hey its the internet and people(immature teens mostly) do sometimes joke to cope.

What gets my fucking goat is all the assholes who are saying "oh well, what did you fucking expect based on where you live? Fuck em". They aren't joking, they aren't using "coping mechanisms". They are just cold-hearted fucktards who could give a crap about anything in life that doesn't directly affect them. Douchebags.

Oh btw A big fuck you to the people with mod points today.

They have been warned for decades

[charnov]

When they levies were built it caused siltation to build up in the Gulf instead of where it is supposed to, the banks of the Miss. They really have been asking for it. This type of development was done solely for the purposes of commercial development. FEMA forced thousands of people to move away from other parts of the Miss after multiple floods. They should do it again. Get used to this people. We are at the beginning of a 27 - 50 year cycle. Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, etc. are all going to get smacked by at least 6 category 3 or above storms per year for decades. This cycle has happened several times before and we knew it was coming.

Re:They have been warned for decades

[ksheff]

Even if the levies were never built, NOLA would still have be smacked around by this hurricane due to it's location. Given the amount of traffic that goes up the Mississippi, the levies would still have been built to maintain a clear shipping channel.

Re:Leave it alone

[Overzeetop]

Well, you can design for that, too. But its expensive, and when you have the federal government stepping in after each flood and helping to rebuild, why bother spending all that money up front. Nanny state will bail you out.

I say don't bother to pump it out. I sure as hell don't want to pay for it, especially since this has been predicted for some time. Stupid is as stupid does.

Salon: The Battle of New Orleans

[Anonymous Coward]

The Battle of New Orleans

The battle of New Orleans
Long before Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was in a precarious state -- caught in an ongoing war with the mighty Mississippi River.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By John McPhee

Aug. 30, 2005 | For those watching the near-cataclysmic results of Hurricane Katrina, and wondering how New Orleans ever fell into such a precariously vulnerable position, John McPhee's great 1989 book "The Control of Nature" offers concrete answers. Each of the three parts of the book deals with a different region where man has been at war with nature: in Los Angeles, Iceland and, most important at this moment, the lower Mississippi River. Katrina is, of course, a case of nature waging war on man. But its damage and devastation may be felt all the more in places like New Orleans, where sturdy and deeply rooted men and women have faced off with the great river we call the Mississippi again and again. In this excerpt from "Atchafalaya," the first chapter from "The Control of Nature," McPhee draws affectionate portraits of the men of the Army Corps of Engineers and others who toil on behalf of "progress." Yet, it's clear which side he comes down on in these fights. His work reminds us that there are things more powerful than we are, and that nature, however hard we try to control it, will run its course.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Something like half of New Orleans is now below sea level -- as much as fifteen feet. New Orleans, surrounded by levees, is emplaced between Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi like a broad shallow bowl. Nowhere is New Orleans higher than the river's natural bank. Underprivileged people live in the lower elevations, and always have. The rich -- by the river -- occupy the highest ground. In New Orleans, income and elevation can be correlated on a literally sliding scale: the Garden District on the highest level, Stanley Kowalski in the swamp. The Garden District and its environs are locally known as uptown.

Torrential rains fall on New Orleans -- enough to cause flash floods inside the municipal walls. The water has nowhere to go. Left on its own, it would form a lake, rising inexorably from one level of the economy to the next. So it has to be pumped out. Every drop of rain that falls on New Orleans evaporates or is pumped out. Its removal lowers the water table and accelerates the city's subsidence. Where marshes have been drained to create tracts for new housing, ground will shrink, too. People buy landfill to keep up with the Joneses. In the words of Bob Fairless, of the New Orleans District engineers, "It's almost an annual spring ritual to get a load of dirt and fill in the low spots on your lawn." A child jumping up and down on such a lawn can cause the earth to move under another child, on the far side of the lawn.

Many houses are built on slabs that firmly rest on pilings. As the turf around a house gradually subsides, the slab seems to rise. Where the driveway was once flush with the foor of the carport, a bump appears. The front walk sags like a hammock. The sidewalk sags. The bump up to the carport, growing, becomes high enough to knock the front wheels out of alignment. Sakrete appears, like putty beside a windowpane, to ease the bump. The property sinks another foot. The house stays where it is, on its slab and pilings. A ramp is built to get the car into the carport. The ramp rises three feet. But the yard, before long, has subsided four. The carport becomes a porch, with hanging plants and steep wooden steps. A carport that is not firmly anchored may dangle from the side of a house like a third of a drop-leaf table. Under the house, daylight appears. You can see under the slab and out the other side. More landfill or more concrete is packed around the edges to hide the ugly scene. A gas main, broken by the settling earth, leaks below the slab. The sealed cavity fills with gas. The house blows sky high.

"The people cannot have w

Re:Salon: The Battle of New Orleans

[Anonymous Coward]

The complete book, "The Control Of Nature", is one of the best books I've ever read, and IMHO one of McPhee's five best books. Also worth reading is "The Curve Of Binding Energy" about the development of fusion bombs and the possibility that they could be made by terrorists, written in about 1983, "The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed", about a combination airplane/dirigible being developed by two eccentric pastors, and what a lot of my friends refer to as Geology Porn, "Annals Of The Former World" (which originally appeared as separate books, including what I consider his best work of all, "Rising Up From The Plains.")

Re:Salon: The Battle of New Orleans

[3waygeek]

The Curve of Binding Energy was written in the early 70s and first published in book form in 1974. IIRC, The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed came a year or two earlier.

There's a somewhat prophetic passage in The Curve of Binding Energy in which McPhee and Ted Taylor (a former nuclear weapons designer) are touring the then-under-construction World Trade Center towers and musing about how big a nuke (presumably of terrorist origin) would be sufficient to bring them down. This definitely places the book in the early 70s, as the WTC opened in 1975.

Re:Salon: The Battle of New Orleans

[Kuscheltier]

War on Nature!

See it all on Fox News!

Re:Salon: The Battle of New Orleans

[smellsofbikes]

I couldn't remember when I wrote the above -- I just knew it was a LONG time before 'terrorism' was talked about in the US. And yeah, I do remember the discussion of the WTC, now that you mention it.

Re:Answer

[Overzeetop]

1. Build on ground that is above flood level.

2. Build structures to withstand local environmental loads (hint 1: 50 years isn't long enough; hint 2:Florida has lots of data in wind)

Re:News for Nerds? Stuff that matters?

[BCW2]

It's a major engineering challenge. Since most of us nerds have engineering skills at some level this does apply.

1. Communications-create more reliable system. Will benefit everyone in any disater.
2. Flood control-make any flood prone area safer(don't give me the move it troll, it's our biggest seaport).
3. Evacuation planning-how to move a large population to safety from any kind of disaster.

I think that is enough to interest most nerds I know!

"Too big" is no longer an issue

[artemis67]

All commerce has come to a screeching halt. All citizens have been ordered to evacuate. All properties have sustained significant damage. Restoring power and phones, pumping out the flood waters, and decontaminating the drinking water is going to take a long, long time. There is no New Orleans economy anymore. New Orleans as an ongoing concern has ceased to exist.

People can't wait months and years for New Orleans to be rebuilt. They will collect their insurance checks and their federal disaster relief checks, and build new lives in other cities.

Rebuilding the city might take a few years. Rebuilding the population and the economy (rebuilding the confidence) will take many decades, and there's no guarantee it will ever happen.

Re:Too much

[babtras]

What land?

Re:Leave it alone

[draggin_fly]

As someone who visited New Orleans two weeks ago and thought seriously about living there, I can say that New Orleans will come back. There's a lot of money to be made in that location. It's beautiful, yes, fun and charming, too, but there's a powerful shipping economy. So much oil and so much natural gas and so many farm products go through New Orleans that it would get built from scratch starting today if it weren't already there. (Technically, the city is still there -- might be easier to rebuild from scratch, though.) As the original post pointed out, there are plenty of cities built on fault lines (like Seattle) or near them (San Francisco, Oakland, pretty much all of Southern California). No coastal city is safe, really, as the recent Indian Ocean tidal wave made clear. So the question is not so much whether New Orleans or other Gulf Coast cities should rebuild but how they rebuild. This disaster was predicted and lots of city planners knew the dikes might fail. The Dutch (yes, I work with some) would never have let their dikes get undersized or under-maintained for any reason. They are rightly paranoid for their country. They seem shocked that we Americans planned so poorly for a distaster that had to come. This wasn't even a worst-case F5 scenario; nevertheless, New Orleans will be recovering for 20 years. The '20 years' estimate is real, too. I live in a Maryland town that was flooded by Hurricane Agnes 33 years ago and the downtown shops are still being rebuilt. The poorer sections of New Orleans will probably give some of the /. writers their wish -- they won't get rebuilt and/or re-inhabited for a long, long time. By then, I hope, they will be built higher and with backup deisel generators and water purifiers.

It could be worse...

[rnturn]

"... New Orleans is going through something very close to the worst case scenario right now."

Folks down in New Orleans have to sweat another month or two of hurricane season. Having even a Catagory I hit the city after the devastation that's already occured would, IMHO, be the worst case scenario.

Re:Leave it alone

[qzulla]

So move now before disaster strikes your town. Now. Move tomorrow. Leave your home. Leave your past. Leave.

qz

Under water

[svender]

No crap its underwater neworleans itself is underwater. Human ingenuity is a great thing but there are some areas where you just have to cut your losses and trying to maintain a city that is below sealevel on the coast is one of them. Of course if you wanted to build a giant unpentetrable wall around new orleans then maybe you could live there. But even if you did you would still have to deal with the fact that eventually it will end and then how do you get sewage out and maintain drainage.

Wise men

[brakken]

Wise men build their house on stone .... morons build them undersealevel near the ocean

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[WatertonMan]

The difference is that this disaster has been widely expected. When I lived in Louisiana everyone talked about this in matter of fact terms. In fact most expected things to be far worse. Just be grateful it wasn't a cat 4 or cat 5 storm that hit a bit further west. I remember talking to the guy in charge of disaster planning for the state back in the 1980's. I asked what happens if a hurricane goes over Lake Pontchartrain. He said almost everyone dies because there is no way out of the city and no time to evacuate a few million people.

This was in the 1980's.

Everyone has known this would happen eventually but pretended it wouldn't.

I understand that for the people there this is of no comfort and we have to turn our hearts to them. I agree we should. But it was like 9/11 when many people had been trying to warn the public for years and everyone turned a deaf ear. Typically these sorts of things are well known about in advance years earlier. What's tragic isn't just the people killed and displaced. What's tragic is that this could have been prevented by not building up an area in which we knew this would happen.

We should be grateful that most of the predictions didn't happen. Because it easily could have been much, much worse.

No joking? Yeah, right.

[bersl2]

Maybe it's just because I live Uptown, where devastating flood waters have not yet appeared (but may soon, due to the 17th St. Canal levee breach), but I say joke on.

Re:No joking? Yeah, right.

[FunWithHeadlines]

As a local resident, I defer to your local expertise. But while you joke on, may I suggest you get out if you are able? As you say, the flood waters are coming, and this bad situation is going to get much worse for you. Please be safe.

Re:No joking? Yeah, right.

[bersl2]

Check the profile. I'm 1000 feet above sea level right now, and hundreds of miles to the east. Yes, my family escaped far before the storm hit.

Though, had I been there, I might have stayed. Ah, the stupidity of youth.

200 students trapped in dorm

[leighklotz]

I just heard that there are 200-250 students trapped in a dorm in New Orleans and the floodwaters are rising and they were asking by ham radio for help.

that has nothing to do with New Orleans

[Trepidity]

What you're talking about is the Port of Southern Louisiana, which is located along a 50-mile stretch of the Mississippi river. Most shipping is not actually in the city of New Orleans (at least not for the past few decades). This sprawling port does not require the city of New Orleans in order to operate, although some debris will indeed have to be cleared out of the river.

It's true that it does require people in the vicinity to operate the various facilities, but there is no reason they can't be located further inland. New Orleans is in just about the worst possible spot in the region, located below sea level, in a bowl, in a swamp, between a river, lake, other lake, and the gulf.

If New Orleans were rebuilt 30-40 miles upriver, the port could continue to operate just fine, and the residents would be in a safer and more sustainable location. There is absolutely no reason to continue to maintain a city that is an average of 10 feet below sea level, when there is perfectly good above-sea-level land not very far away.

Re:that has nothing to do with New Orleans

[JonXP]

If you went farther upstream, as long as you were still located on the Delta you'd need levees to prevent river flooding, and without river flooding you'd start sinking again. The city wasn't built below sea-level, it sank there.

Re:that has nothing to do with New Orleans

[Trepidity]

It'd still be safer: one of New Orleans's major problems is that it's surrounded by water. Lake Pontchartrain in particular is a perennial threat. If the city only had to contend with the Mississippi River, it would be a lot easier to protect it properly. Were it 30-40 miles further inland, hurricanes would also be substantially weaker by the time they reached it.

Re:that has nothing to do with New Orleans

[DavidTC]

That's why, when you build next to the river, you make sure there's lower land on the other side of the river. Put up a ten foot high fence just in case. Tada. The river floods the other way.

As for the sinking, that's why you don't build right next to the river. Feel free to sink below river level if you've got a large hill between you and the river.

And, yes, we know they didn't plan it, but it's right at the top of stupid-ass places to locate a major town, like Los Angelos and Seattle. We certainly shouldn't rebuild it there if we can help it, or at least shouldn't pretend we can keep back the water.

Re:that has nothing to do with New Orleans

[SpaceLifeForm]

Only if the Corp of Engineers gives up trying to control the Mississipi River.

If they don't let the siltation process occur, 30-40 miles inland could turn into just another 30-40 years of bought time before that buffer erodes away.

Yes, the city should be rebuilt in a better location, but only if that location is long term sustainable.

Re:that has nothing to do with New Orleans

[spudnic]

If New Orleans were rebuilt 30-40 miles upriver

Wouldn't that be Baton Rouge?

Only 9 Weeks to PIMP out New Orleans?

[dthx1138]

Guess I misread this

Re:Leave it alone

[LWATCDR]

Let's see how often has New Orleans ever been hit by a cat 4 hurricane... Never.
The Cascade range is an active range. Dormant doesn't mean dead. There is a very good chance that Rainier will go off at some time. The City of San Fransisco was destroy once by a hurricane. As for southern California let's throw in fires, mud slides, storms, and the cost of keeping enough water flowing into the city.
BTW a major hurricane can hit New York, Boston, Washington DC or any other city on the east cost of Florida. How would New York do with a even a category 3. Maine actually got hit by category 3 in the 1920s during the last cycle.

What can be done?

[Macdude]

and what can be done to prevent and/or lessen such disasters in the future?

Hurricanes are a natural weather event, we can't stop or control them. So how about we get out of their way?

Re:What can be done?

[zorak1103]

you do believe the world is a flat disc and elvis is still alive, don't you? ;-)

Re:What can be done?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

We can spend billions on complying with Kyoto or spend billions on researching ways to rely less on fossil fuels. Hmm...

And what problem? Your Global Warming that could be a natural trend?

New Orleans has to go

[Animats]

What with global warming and rising ocean levels, cities below sea level just aren't feasible.

Re:New Orleans has to go

[codemangler]

It'll never happen. The fact that it would put politicians out of a job is enough to stop that idea dead in its tracks.

mostly because he's an authoritarian thug

[Trepidity]

Chavez's commitment to freedom and democracy is so strong that he:

• Led a military coup against an elected Venezuelan president (unsuccessful, 1992)
  
• Arrested Roberto Alonso, one of the main opposition leaders, on trumped-up charges
  
• Maintains a sizable paramilitary militia loyal to him personally, outside the normal civilian and military command and oversight structures
  

Re:mostly because he's an authoritarian thug

[booch]

From the title of your post, I wasn't sure if you were going to talk about Pat Robertson, George W. Bush, or Hugo Chavez. ;)

Re:mostly because he's an authoritarian thug

[demachina]

"Led a military coup against an elected Venezuelan president (unsuccessful, 1992)"

You left out the fact that this President Carlos Andrés Pérez was impeached and convicted on corruption charges in 1993. The fact that Chavez tried to oust him actually made him more popular in Venezuela.

Pérez was a bizarre president.

In his first term he ranted against the International Monetary Fund calling it ""Neutron Bomb that killed people, but left buildings standing.". At the start of his second term he took a $4.5 billion loan from the IMF with all the nasty strings that come with those.

Pérez is actually the one that nationalized American oil and steel interests in Venezuela which presumably put him on America's hit list. You have to wonder if maybe the U.S. wasn't backing Chavez's coup attempt at the time. America HATES it when a Socialist nationalizes American business assets.

"Arrested Roberto Alonso, one of the main opposition leaders, on trumped-up charges"

That one is certainly open to debate and depends on who you listen to. It may also be that he had 55 Columbian paramilitaries on his ranch in Venezuela as part of a new coup attempt in 2004. The right wing government in Columbia is best friends with the right wing government in Washington and they both HAVE been trying to overthrow Chavez. Though its impossible to tell who is telling the truth on this one exactly.

This is the most interesting part of the Wikipedia article on the supposed 2004 coup attempt:

"In June 2004, a Cuban Miami TV channel broadcasted a program featuring the Florida-based Comandos F4. Rodolfo Frometa, the Comandos F4 leader, said that his group was ready to carry out violent attacks against the Cuban government. Former Venezuelan army captain Eduardo García described the help he received from Comandos F4 to organize similar violent actions against the Chávez government. According to the TV program maker Randy Alonso, the US government would have recently earmarked $36 million to support such paramilitary groups. [7] U.S. officials and opposition figures in Venezuela have dismissed this claim. Alonso went into hiding. Many media reports, and his official website, suggested that he had fled the country."

"Maintains a sizable paramilitary militia loyal to him personally, outside the normal civilian and military command and oversight structures"

Uh so, this is not suprising when under constant threat of coup attempts which is Chavez and are high on the Bush administration's list of people it would most like to topple or assassinate. Interestingly the Army that staged the coup against Chavez put him back in power when they realized they guy trying to seize power with Bush administration backing, Pedro Carmona Estanga, was going to implement a dictatorship. Chavez appointed the army officer who lead the coup to his government soon after, pretty crafty.

Re:Sinking :Look at this from popularmechanics'01

[yorugua]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1 282151.html http://www.popularmechanics.com.nyud.net:8090/scie nce/research/1282151.html

They don't bury the dead in New Orleans. The highest point in the city is only 6 ft. above sea level, which makes for watery graves. Fearful that rotting corpses caused epidemics, the city limited ground burials in 1830. Mausoleums built on soggy cemetery grounds became the final resting place for generations. Beyond providing a macabre tourist attraction, these "cities of the dead" serve as a reminder of the Big Easy's vulnerability to flooding. The reason water rushes into graves is because New Orleans sits atop a delta made of unconsolidated material that has washed down the Mississippi River.

Think of the city as a chin jutting out, waiting for a one-two punch from Mother Nature. The first blow comes from the sky. Hurricanes plying the Gulf of Mexico push massive domes of water (storm surges) ahead of their swirling winds. After the surges hit, the second blow strikes from below. The same swampy delta ground that necessitates above-ground burials leaves water from the storm surge with no place to go but up.

The fact that New Orleans has not already sunk is a matter of luck. If slightly different paths had been followed by Hurricanes Camille, which struck in August 1969, Andrew in August 1992 or George in September 1998, today we might need scuba gear to tour the French Quarter.

"In New Orleans, you never get above sea level, so you're always going to be isolated during a strong hurricane," says Kay Wilkins of the southeast Louisiana chapter of the American Red Cross.

During a strong hurricane, the city could be inundated with water blocking all streets in and out for days, leaving people stranded without electricity and access to clean drinking water. Many also could die because the city has few buildings that could withstand the sustained 96- to 100-mph winds and 6- to 8-ft. storm surges of a Category 2 hurricane. Moving to higher elevations would be just as dangerous as staying on low ground. Had Camille, a Category 5 storm, made landfall at New Orleans, instead of losing her punch before arriving, her winds would have blown twice as hard and her storm surge would have been three times as high.

Yet knowing all this, area residents have made their potential problem worse. "Over the past 30 years, the coastal region impacted by Camille has changed dramatically. Coastal erosion combined with soaring commercial and residential development in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama have all combined to significantly increase the vulnerability of the area," says Sandy Ward Eslinger, of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Services Center in Charleston, S.C. Early Warning

Emergency planners believe that it is a foregone conclusion that the Big Easy someday will be hit by a scouring storm surge. And, given the tremendous amount of coastal-area development, this watery "big one" will produce a staggering amount of damage. Yet, this doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a massive loss of lives.

The key is a new emergency warning system developed by Gregory Stone, a professor at Louisiana State University (LSU). It is called WAVCIS, which stands for wave-current surge information system. Within 30 minutes to an hour after raw data is collected from monitoring stations in the Gulf, an assessment of storm-surge damage would be available to emergency planners. Disaster relief agencies then would be able to mobilize resources--rescue personnel, the Red Cross, and so forth.

The $4.5 million WAVCIS project, which is now coming on line, will fill a major void in the Louisiana storm warning system, which was practically nonexistent compared to those of other Gulf Coast states. A system of 20 "weat

If you need to choose, live in a quake region

[Aqua OS X]

If you need to choose, live in a quake region. Sure they're unpredictable, and the first one or two might make you poop yourself. However, if you don't live or work on landfill, in a dated structure, or by a major fault line, you'll be fine.

Perhaps it is time to abandon it

[N3Bruce]

As difficult as it is to think about abandoning New Orleans, the grim reality is this:

1. Almost the entire city is inundated. Except for some tall and modern downtown buildings, most of the residential areas are going to be not worth salvaging,they will have to be rebuilt from scratch, even if the city is pumped dry. These buildings will be soaking the the fetid stew of stagnant polluted water for weeks, if not months. Anything made of wood will be turned to mulch.

2. Most of the major highways that serve the city are heavily damaged. It will take many months, if not years to reconnect the city properly to the rest of the world, and cost billions of dollars.

3. Same can be said for the other infrastructure, such as water, sewer, electrical, and communications infrastructure.

4. Even if the downtown high-rises are relatively unscathed (and most have pretty serious glass breakage) who will stay in the area to work in them or occupy them.

5. The levee system needs extensive repairs to hold back even another tropical storm or category one hurricane. It is not unreasonable to expect another tropical cyclone to form in the gulf and affect that part of the coast before repairs can be completed.

6. Even if the levees are reinforced against another Category 4/5 hurricane, New Orleans faces other threats to its viability as a city. Upriver, the Mississippii River is held back by huge dikes to prevent it from finding a new route to the sea. Someday, these defenses will be overwhelmed, and Old Man River will take a shortcut to the west, abandoning its current channel, cutting off New Orleans and the water flow that keeps its shipping channels clear.

To abandon New Orleans would mean abandoning over 400 years of tradition, history, and a unique and quirky culture unlike anywhere else in the country. Without a vision to keep the survivors in the region, most likely they would disperse throughout the rest of the country, as the article noted. The geography of the area provides no easy answers, there is not a whole lot of good buildable land that can be used to build a new city nearby, but there are better locations to build than the current location.

Perhaps it is the Sim City enthusiast in me, but perhaps the destruction of New Orleans would give us a chance to rebuild a city from scratch, and avoid some of the mistakes that were made in the original town. It would be a mistake as well though, to rebuild New Orleans in the same sterile and souless style as many modern suburbs are, as it would be to try to rebuild an exact replica of it upriver somewhere.

Re:Perhaps it is time to abandon it

[michael_cain]

To abandon New Orleans would mean abandoning over 400 years of tradition, history, and a unique and quirky culture unlike anywhere else in the country.

Not to mention that a great deal of the middle of the US requires a sizeable port city somewhere near the mouth of the Mississippi. Add up the tonnage and the value of cargo that passes through New Orleans and South Louisiana, and you get very large numbers indeed. Enormous amounts of bulky goods are transported up and down the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio Rivers. It is not practical to move the transhipment point, from ocean-going vessel to river-going barge, too far upstream.

Re:Perhaps it is time to abandon it

[mrchaotica]

Have you ever heard of Mobile, Alabama? Or Gulfport, Mississippi? They're both big ports near the mouth of the Mississippi. Now, I'm aware that they got hit by the hurricane too, but at least they're not below sea level!

Re:Perhaps it is time to abandon it

[Lars T.]

First of all (from Wikipedia): On 29 August 2005, Gulfport took a direct hit from Hurricane Katrina, and much of Gulfport was flooded or destroyed, with a storm surge exceeding 20 feet (6.1 m) in some sections.

And: Near the mouth of the Mississippi? Gulfport is over 50 miles away from the Mississippi, Mobile over 100 - direct route over the Gulf. How would you get ships able to go on the Mississippi to it? Which was the point of the GP: you can move cargo more or less directly from seafaring ships to riverboats in plaes like New Orleans.

Who was left behind and why?

[Goonie]

When following this story, one thing that didn't really seem to make a great deal of sense to me were the people who were left behind in New Orleans to take shelter in the Superdome and a couple of other hardened buildings. Now, while these buildings were designed to ride out even hurricanes like Katrina, from what I read this was definitely regarded as a "last resort" option.

While I understand that a hurried evacuation is a highly chaotic situation, and there were undoubtedly many foolhardy people who simply decided not to leave, I fail to understand why everybody that wanted to go couldn't have been shifted. Certainly, I would hope that if *I* was in a place where everybody who could drive out was told to evacuate, every possible effort would be made to provide some transport to those who didn't have their own. Heck, if I were evacuating and somebody needed a lift out of there, I'd certainly throw away any crap I was carrying to offer them a ride. Goods are replaceable, people's lives aren't.

Or am I grossly misinterpreting the situation?

Re:Who was left behind and why?

[chris_eineke]

On an off-topic note...

Goods are replaceable, people's lives aren't.

Looks like it's the exact opposite with Corporatism and Consumerism, doesn't it?

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[FunWithHeadlines]

All those events you listed are valid grounds for humor now in the right context (in other words, hold back the Holocaust jokes if you happen to be at a bar mitzvah). But if you were walking around the World Trade Center while bodies were falling to the ground, and making jokes at that moment, you would have gotten punched in the nose (and worse). There's a time and a place for even the darkest humor, and I'm all for it. But give me a break! While the disaster is currently unfolding?? While people are dying as we speak?

Hey, it didn't offend me personally because I have a very strong sense of humor, and I'm not offendable. I like dark humor. But I am also empathetic, something I see lacking in much online discussion. And my empathy for what those poor folks must be going through right now, hearing the spouses breaking down in tears for their lost loved ones, and thinking about the hell that is about to face tens of thousands of people there, and I felt that joking about them was too soon. If some non-empathetic person created an encyclopedia entry to make it seem like it's OK to joke about the dead as they are dying, well fine. I'm guilty for being empathetic. I sleep well at night.

I'm sure this has been suggested, but...

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

Perhaps it just isn't sustainable to live below sea level. At some stage of the game, regardless of *why* the city is sinking, it might be time to say "you know what? It just isn't cost effective to live in this spot" and move on. The sea will eventually have its way.

Amazing moderation!

[FunWithHeadlines]

I find it amazing that a sincere plea for someone else's safety was modded down.

Re:Amazing moderation!

[bani]

you must be new around here.

Canada Rocks

[thelizman]

We give you guys alot of shit...and you talk funny...but we couldn't ask for a better neighbor.

Sorry, that's neighbour isn't it...

Re:Canada Rocks

[aminorex]

Except, of course, for Ontario. Blighters.

Re:Canada Rocks

[Better.Safe.Than.Sor]

Yeah, Ontario sucks . . . but thank christ we're not those insufferable pricks in BC. Tsunami bait fer sure.

Dear Senator

[xerid]

Dear Senator,

        I find it disturbing that there are no federal regulations to counter the record increasing gas prices. For instance, why hasn't there been oil refineries built in the past 30 years? Maybe to restrict the flow of oil, thus manipulating supply and demand? This kind of monopolistic jockeying is a failure of both the oil companies (who obviously love it) and those who are supposed to represent the American people.

Something to consider:

        Television production began in the late 1930s, 30 years after the production of vehicles. The FCC, however, has announced changes to broadcasting by issuing a requirement for digital television to be in place by December 31, 2006, only a few years after the technology has been possible.

        The Department of Energy, on the other hand, has yet to issue such decrees for transportation and other high energy demanding products, even though capabilities of hydrogen fuel cells have been know since the late sixties. Of course, one might say that even though it was know, the capabilities of production could not have met our needs. To counter that, I would say that very little funding was put forth for such research and development. Now, however, even with the capability of hydrogen production at quantitative and cost effective levels (using amoeba), little is being done to facilitate further advancements, let alone set reasonable deadlines to migrate to these new technologies. In fact, moving to alternative (non-fossil) sources of energy is the only solution.

        So, senator, there is one question that you need to answer that will surely influence my vote:

        Who do you represent?

better yet...

[YesIAmAScript]

Why don't you live your way and let others live theirs'?

I think you'll find things a lot easier if you just concentrate on being the best person you can be and stop trying to tell others how to live.

Does it even really take away much from your existence if others make poor jokes and you just turn away?

Re:better yet...

[FunWithHeadlines]

How am I not letting others live their lives? I am not making anyone do anything. I made a suggestion, something that happens in a civilized society. Those who hear me can either take my suggestion or not, but either way I have done my part to advance the discourse.

You might find it amazing, but I am able to concentrate on being the best person I can be and simultaenously offer comments.

Re:better yet...

[FunWithHeadlines]

I called for empathy for the dead and dying. I stand by it.

Re:Leave it alone

[LaminatorX]

"At somepoint many developed areas will either be abandonded as urban areas (due to lack of water as much as too much water), or we shall spend vast sums of money to inhabit areas that are 'suboptimal.'"

You mean like most of California?

Yes

[thelizman]

The Dutch probably have the best aquatic geologists on the planet. We could certainly use their expertise in drying the place up. The Norwegians have more cruise ships than any other nation, and they could be leased to provide temporary housing (FEMA has a few ships for this purpose, but they usually house FEMA employees). The Italian engineers who manage pulic works for Venice would be very helpful in this situation. We could do it without their help; we could do it easier with their help.

Re:Yes

[jasenj1]

But they better all speak English. Because otherwise we won't understand a thing they say.

- Jasen.

Good thing they had that Superdome!!!

[Brian_Ellenberger]

I'm one of those people who complain about 100+ million dollar sports teams who force taxpayers to build stadiums for them from taxdollars, but there would be 10000+ people who would be SOL without the Superdome. I'm sure people would have scoffed at the idea of funding the dome because "it might come in handy in a natural disaster" but it has definitely saved alot of lives.

Re:Good thing they had that Superdome!!!

[RexRhino]

Yes... except that instead of spending hundreds of millions building a stadium that does a mediocre job of acting as a shelter, they could build an excellent shelter for tens of millions.

Re:Good thing they had that Superdome!!!

[Dr. Cody]

How much would it cost to build that excellent shelter and get the Saints to stop sucking?

so this really means...

[recharged95]

I'm hearing on the news, really bad water(toxic), lack of resources, lack of troops, panic in residents, marshal law, lack of a plan for the worse case scenario (except run away, don't come back about a month! And that's in gov't time, so in reality that's 3 months).

This will be a true test of government using technology since we are looking at a natural disaster in a highly populated, highly advanced city (we're not looking at '2nd' world islands like the tsunamis).

Considering technology has helped up conclude the high probability of this event, the tools to monitor the amount of damage/intensity, the history of the area (interpolation/modeling/simulation), and has gven us the facts to date. It is now up to the execution of the people's will, i.e. the policies and laws. Considering the policy/culture of the last few years is 'everyman for himself', the future looks tough. In the end, just like the SF earthquake and H. Andrew in the mid-90's, are we making the best use of technology and knowledge (in particular science)? have we learned anything from history [thru tech]?

I see about 6-8 months to return to some form of a modern US city. I think it took about a year for the victims of hurricane Andrew. If that is so, then technology is working as we expect. Then again is the rest of the country suffers (ecomonically, infrastruture, transportation, policy, etc...), then technology likely isn't being used properly.

The Tragically Hip rock

[darkCanuck]

I couldn't find a video, nor a legal mp3, but "It Can't Be Nashville Every Night" is a good start. "He said fuck this and fuck that. And this guy's a diplomat." ... cracks me up every time. http://umusic.ca/site/media/thehip/video/inbetween evolution/itcantbenashville_320.mov

Re:The Tragically Hip rock

[TheTomcat]

A quick search turned this up..

http://www.practicallyhip.com/files/NOIS.WMV

S

Re:The Tragically Hip rock

[darkCanuck]

woohoo! contemplating whether I should infect my iMac with Windows Media Player for this or not...

Re:The Tragically Hip rock

[TheTomcat]

It's a cam, near the stage, so it's hard to understand what Gord is singing... UNLESS you know the song (-;

S

Has the President gone back to WORK yet?

[Aqua OS X]

Has George finally decided to go back to work yet? I noticed that he was still traveling around on his wartime PR tour today. He mentioned Louisiana for about a minute or two... and then he moved right back to freedom, terrorists, and some other redundant talking points.

Considering the dead bodies on roof tops and attics, a destroyed major city, and the danger of a potential recession, you'd think the guy would be trying to do something more significant.... or at least trying to LOOK like he was doing something significant.

ehh.

Re: Has the President gone back to WORK yet?

[Black Parrot]

> Has George finally decided to go back to work yet? [...] you'd think the guy would be trying to do something more significant.... or at least trying to LOOK like he was doing something significant.

Forgive my cynicism, but I suspect he and his staff are too busy celebrating the distraction of the media away from his five-week-long wartime vacation and the Summer of Sheehan.

Re:Has the President gone back to WORK yet?

[Alioth]

What can Bush do? Him talking about New Orleans won't stop the bodies. Him visiting NO will only intefere with the rescue work ongoing. The right thing for Bush to do is to not intefere and keep well away, and let the disaster relief workers get on with their jobs.

Re:Has the President gone back to WORK yet?

[zardor]

He dosn't really need to yet.
The price of oil and gas is going up just fine without any intervention from him.
Isn't that all that matters?

Re:Has the President gone back to WORK yet?

[EricTheGreen]

Ptooey. What do you expect him to do--pile sandbags?

FEMA has been mobilized. Disaster spending has been authorized. What other "significant" work do you expect him to do?

He'll probably visit at some point; but, right now, do you really want the circus of a presidential visit on top of the war zone that is the gulf coast? Better to stay out of the way and let the disaster relief people do what they need to do first.

Grind your axe on something that makes sense.

Re:Has the President gone back to WORK yet?

[gatkinso]

Yes - he has.

And let's face it - he wasn't really on vacation - he was "working from home."

Think about this the next time you decide to tell your boss you are "telecommuting."

Re: Has the President gone back to WORK yet?

[dwayner79]

Learn to do some actual research, not just blindly follow the liberal bias media. The west wing was being renovated. He had to work from elseware. Try one week vacation as the second week he cut off for this storm.

Don't be a robot of the media.

Re:Has the President gone back to WORK yet?

[wift]

I believe the poster was referring to being back in the white house where he would have access to his handlers/advisors information which is all funneled in from different departments and govt. agencies. Working from home sounds like work but it ain't. The rights give GW too much slack and make excuses while the lefts are pointing out each flaw. Who is more correct? Pump money, water, tents,medicine, people and communication capabilities into the area and that's GW needs to make sure is being done. Then making damn well sure what is being done is given to the media.

Re:Has the President gone back to WORK yet?

[khallow]

no, i would never expect him to do that, because that would require a modicum of decency.

And you don't have a modicum of decency to spare.

Re:Has the President gone back to WORK yet?

[cybrthng]

Telecommuting for a job is much different than being the president when millions of people are homeless, thousands are dying and your out having cake and invite only parties?

Re:Has the President gone back to WORK yet?

[khallow]

It's just that I bother to figure what Bush is or isn't doing before I bash him. Ie, I have a modicum of decency. While it's pretty clear that you haven't bothered to do that much work. Nor did you bother to figure out my prior comment. I just don't have respect for that sort of laziness.

Speaking of logic, perhaps you'd like to explain your reasoning for concluding that I'm republican?

Add to that

[YrWrstNtmr]

The troops (Guard and otherwise) in Iraq are not generally the type of troops needed to help here. Logistics, construction, food & water supply, medical, maybe some security. But not infantry/armor.

You don't just plug anyone in a green suit into any job that needs doing.

Re:Add to that

[John Newman]

he troops (Guard and otherwise) in Iraq are not generally the type of troops needed to help here. Logistics, construction, food & water supply, medical, maybe some security.

Erm, those are exactly the specialties that are heavily concentrated in the Guard, and which are heavily deloyed in Iraq right now.

Military police? Civil affairs? Engineers? Transportation? The whole point of the post-Vietnam Guard reorganization was to take these critical units out of active forces, so a major war would require substantial Guard activation. It worked. And so many of these critical, front-line units are deployed overseas right now, including many from the region like the 1088th ENG Bn and 199th Support Bn of Louisiana, and the 150th ENG Bn and 106th Support Bn of Mississippi. Where do you think most of the LA and MS Guard's best equipment is? In Iraq with the fighting units, or back home working to save New Orleans?

Yes, it sucks for them: and?

[BlueHands]

So, basically I have to feel sorry for people who repeatedly make dumb choices?

Sure there are people who are getting hit and hurt by this that did the best they could, who had limited options. But I can guarantee that there will be people who will re-build in the same damn place, waiting for it to happen again because "it's my family's land. My daddy died for this land!"

i don't feel sorry for people who smoke and get cancer, I don't feel sorry for Republicans who voted for George Bush and I don't feel sorry for people that insist on building in places where they know they will be fucked.

For the people who have no choice, for all the children that this is so painful for I am truly sad. For everyone else, deal.

*moan*

[Leolo]

If it keeps on rainin', the levee's goin' to break
If it keeps on rainin', the levee's goin' to break
And if the levee break, won't got no place to stay

Do what Galveston did

[mehtajr]

After the 1900 hurricane that killed between 6000 and 12000 people, the city of Galveston rebuilt while raising the entire city by up to 17 feet.

Holiday Inn!

[Agarax]

Or did you just spend the night at a Holiday Inn?

Smarter idea:

[Atlantis-Rising]

build it on land ABOVE SEA LEVEL. Who's stupid idea was to build it below sea level? If the area is really so heavily damaged, re-build elsewhere, maybe about 35 km to the north-west. Yes, it will be a massive undertaking. But hell, isn't it already?

Re:Smarter idea:

[gatkinso]

Ofcourse this is correct - however they didn't start out that way - over 300 years the shifting silt and river evolved into what it is today.

Not saying that at one point they should have said "hey these dams and levys are a dumb idea"... just that it took about three centuries for the situation to reach this point.

cool!

[ecalkin]

we can blame this on the french?

Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[Alien54]

It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.

-- Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004

Let the Bush bashing begin, at least, according to some.

Funding for work on New Orleans' flood prevention system slowed to a trickle in 2003, and many people (long before Monday) claimed that was due to the Iraq war. Did GW bet that he wouldn't need the money for New Orleans levees, and decided to shift it to the war instead?

Looks like a bad bet.......

Wonder if Congress will look into this?

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[ugmoe]

If the funding was bad since 2003 - why do I read about this for the 2006 budget?

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4200/i s_20050606/ai_n14657367%5Bfindarticles.com%5D

Stephen Jeselink, interim commander of the New Orleans Corps district, told employees in an internal e-mail dated May 25 that the district is experiencing financial challenges. Execution of our available funds must be dealt with through prudent districtwide management decisions. In addition to a hiring freeze, Jeselink canceled the annual Corps picnic held every June.

Why did he wait until 2006 to cut the picnic if funding has been bad since 2003?

Cutting a picnic is a sign of seriousness not seen before now.

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[cjsnell]

Wonder if Congress will look into this?

Why? They already know what happened! Congress, not Bush, was responsible for cutting the funding.

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[ugmoe]

Hello,

The funding for the Army Corps of Engineers has increased every year since at least 2002.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy04/pdf/budget/ corps.pdf

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/pdf/budget/ corps.pdf

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/budget/ corps.pdf

2002: 4.6 Billion 2003: 4.7 Billion 2004: 4.8 Billion 2005: 4.9 Billion (estimate)

Are you really asking congress to investigate how the lower budget in 2006 was responsible for the hurricane damage in 2005?

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[Cocteaustin]

Those increases are actually squarely in line with the rate of inflation for those years, so in budget terms, those aren't what one would call 'increases'. To be fair, it's not like Bush made a choice between war and letting New Orleans drown. (And remember that Congress doles out the dough.) The 2006 budget does devote a lot of (borrowed) money to national infrastructure (mostly highways) for the first time in many years. But in this case it was a case of too little, far too late.

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[aredubya74]

Even worse, Congress didn't just approve the cuts, they increased them. Referring to the Louisiana Army Corps of Engineers budget:

The House of Representatives wants to cut the New Orleans district budget 21 percent to $272.4 million in 2006, down from $343.5 million in 2005. The House figure is about $20 million lower than the president's suggested $290.7 million budget.

Source: New Orleans City Business, 6/5/2005. Quoted rather presciently is Democratic senator Mary Landrieu:

"I think it's extremely shortsighted," Landrieu said. "When the Corps of Engineers' budget is cut, Louisiana bleeds. These projects are literally life-and-death projects to the people of south Louisiana and they are (of) vital economic interest to the entire nation."

So...we blow the budget on a war that has no return on investment (unless you consider bloody civil war and likely splintering of Iraq into Shiite and Kurdish states a ROI). We also deepen the deficit with tax cuts that make the rich richer without targeting their dollars for reinvestment in the US. Our return? The poor drown like rats or get shot at like fish in a barrel when they can't escape the flooding in NOLA nor the shooting in Baghdad. Nice folks, the GOP.

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? They already know what happened! Congress, not Bush, was responsible for cutting the funding.

Ah, but why did Congress have to cut funding? To pay for the tax cuts to get reelected and for the war that Bush wanted. Remember, this is a war that Bush decided he could start without the need for Congress to declare it.

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[cjsnell]

Remember, this is a war that Bush decided he could start without the need for Congress to declare it.

Yes, jackass, our Constitution gives the President that power. Clinton went into Somalia without Congressional declaration of war. Kennedy and Johnson sent troops to Vietnam without Congressional declaration of war.

Don't blame Congressional decisions on Bush. He didn't make them, Congress did.

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[mirio]

Wonder if Congress will look into this?

Congress is in charge of expenditures. They don't need to look into it -- they approved it! You can't blame this one entirely on Bush.

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[shawng]

Why would anyone blame the federal government? Why didn't the state or the city take care of this themselves if it was so critical? Both Louisiana and New Orleans have the authority to tax and to spend the money as they see fit. It is absurd that Americans look to the federal government for everything. Whether the President is a Republican or Democrat, he is not going to be able to take care of all of us.

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[aredubya74]

It's only absurd as soon as Louisiana has direct jurisdiction over the levee system itself. It doesn't - it's a federal project. If the feds transferred ownership to the state or local officials, you'd be absolutely right. That hasn't happened, so while it would be feasible to generate funds locally and have them spent federally, it would be a nightmare of red tape, likely eating into the funds raised for the project beyond any meaningful scope.

Further, and this is a pretty meaningful point, we all were already taxed for this very project. The feds take taxes for a myriad of public works projects, and I'd expect most folks put shoring up public infrastructure higher on their list of priorities than tax cuts. Why should LA specifically tax their citizens a second time for the projects already funded by the feds? Sadly, in the guise of sensible budget cutting, the GOP has cut where they should not, spent foolishly, and left us in risky positions nationally. They decided to do things this way; let them suffer the political fallout.

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wonder if Congress will look into this?"

Do you think they'll look into helping you pull your head out of your ass?

To think that any amount of significant work (no matter what the cost) can be done in a handful of years to "prevent" one of the worst natural disasters in recent memory is quite simply, foolish. To believe funding to protect a city that is sinking and is at risk for three major flood types has not been a historical issue since the city was built is quite ignorant.
Looking for someone to blame is always the easy cop-out in any argument. The simple fact is that the city (along with many others) has been at risk for quite sometime.

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[letxa2000]

The Bush-bashers lose sight of the fact that no amount of money is going to protect a below-sea-level-city on the edge of the sea and surrounded by rivers, lakes, and swamps, from massive flooding when a massive hurricane comes through. It's just not going to happen. Build those levees as high as you want, install more pumps. We are nothing compared to the forces of nature, and water is one of nature's strongest forces.

It would be the height of arrogance to think that man can win against the overwhelming forces of nature. And it would be the height of stupidity to blame a natural disaster on the president.

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[Guysmiley777]

Oh, yeah. Somolia was JUST like invading Iraq. Yep. And look how well Vietnam turned out. Who is the jackass again?

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[Cocteaustin]

And that is precisely why we should go back to living in caves, light torches, and await the re-emergence of smallpox.

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[d34thm0nk3y]

Congress gave Bush carte blanc to declare whatever wars he wanted to against Iraq.

the first source found via google:
here

After intensive lobbying by the Bush administration, in early October 2002, the U.S. House of Representatives and then the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly to give President Bush broad authority to use force against Iraq.

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[letxa2000]

Did you miss the point on purpose, or are you really so short that it went completely over your head?

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[Nasarius]

Congress gave Bush carte blanc to declare whatever wars he wanted to against Iraq.

No. We haven't had a declared war since World War II.

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[Cocteaustin]

No, I understood you completely. We are powerless before nature. It's so powerful, we shouldn't even try to control it. All hail mighty nature. I am going back into my cave to die now.

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[swelke]

Just because he's not the first president to have done so doesn't exonerate his actions. The constitution DOES say that congress has to declare war. It's just that in the old days, folks used to actually declare war. Ever since world war II, we haven't really bothered with that part.

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[letxa2000]

No, I understood you completely.

Good.

We are powerless before nature.

Many times, yes.

It's so powerful, we shouldn't even try to control it. All hail mighty nature.

There's a difference between trying to adapt nature within reason and knowing when we're fighting a losing battle. Trying to rescue a below-sea-level-city on the coast nestled between a river, a lake, and swamplands is a losing battle.

Can you get away with "controling" nature? Sometimes, for awhile. Do you stand a chance when nature decides it doesn't want to be controlled? Nope.

I am going back into my cave to die now.

Later, I doubt you'll be missed.

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[Minna Kirai]

Yes, jackass, our Constitution gives the President that power.

Go ahead, paste that bit and show us. Oh wait! You can't... because it doesn't exist!

Re:Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[Alien54]

"Wonder if Congress will look into this?"

Do you think they'll look into helping you pull your head out of your ass?

Unfotunately there are no smileys to indicate the right level of subtlety, irony, sarcasm, and dry humor. but you have the right to be personally insulted, george.

I've seen that...

[Bifurcati]

I've seen that show, and it's just not as good as the original...

Quid?

[thelizman]

New Orleans is under water, and you want to send bait? Brilliant! I'll take 200 lbs of 'quid, a hundred pounds of 'rimp, and about 50 lbs of 'una.

(Boy those Brits sure talk funny.)

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[Anonymous Coward]

My sister has lost her house in New Orleans. Her father-in-law may be dead.

I have spent the last two days scouring news sites and LA websites and user forums for information.

I decided to read the posts on /. to get some "sarcasm and wit" to help relieve the stress.

and the nastiest part

[CiXeL]

is that once one goes many times they'll follow the same path due to the winds being in the same configuration. funny they thought the carolinas were going to get it this year. im in homestead. we got ALOT of flooding when katrina came through here as a strong category 1. see here for the pictures
http://cixel.livejournal.com/1109022.html

Re:Leave it alone

[the_ed_dawg]

There are some things that can be done to reduce the impact of hurricanes like this. The biggest one is to restore the delta and the wet lands. The messing with the Mississippi caused a lot of this damage.

Yes, removing the levees from the Mississippi and restoring the flood plains would reduce the threat of New Orleans flooding during a hurricane but displace everyone who lives along the river to the north. It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The whole point of the levees was to save the entire Mississippi River basin, even far north of New Orleans. Here's just one example of what happened before the levees existed: 700,000 people displaced in 6 states.

The US Corps of Engineers actually has a very good track record of preventing flood damage, preventing approximately $208 billion in damages between 1990 and 2000. Sometimes, these things just happen. The area north of Vicksburg flooded in 1997 due to heavy rains, even with the levees. Iowa had what seemed like 40 days and 40 nights of rain in 1993 and flooded everything. The levees are a necessity to keep these things from happening more often.

Here's an example of the levees in action in 1997: http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/oldpubs/apr 97/story2.htm

Think about the damage that waters 12 feet above flood stages would have caused without the levees. The Mississippi (state) delta had water creeping into people's houses in 1997, but they would have been completely underwater otherwise.

It's like Amdahl's Law. We build the levees to remove the common case (annual displacement of tens of thousands and the persistent destruction of property) and resign ourselves to the rare worst-case scenario (category 5 hurricane impacting New Orleans once in recorded history, displacing 1.3 million) because that is how we achieve maximum benefit. Like you said, we can't just abandon these cities.

By living in a disaster-prone area, be it New Orleans, Los Angeles, or Tokyo, you are making the decision that the risk is acceptable to you. However, here's guessing that they rebuild the levees to withstand a category 5. ...and for the sake of all those whose homes are teetering on the brink of destruction, here's hoping that the 3,000 lb. giant sandbags work.

Suggestion for a new mod

[SupremeTaco]

Can I get a +1 'Tru Dat' mod?

Try Oregon

[jim_v2000]

Try the Oregon Coast, or the Willamette Valley (think Portland, OR). Every few years we get a wind storm, but it's more entertaining than damaging. And it snows about the same frequency. And the average temp in the winter is about 40, and in the summer it's about 90. Very nice.

Re:Try Oregon

[Leto-II]

Don't listen to this man. He's lying. Oregon is the worst place to live in the world. Don't ever think about moving here. I mean there. Yah. Oregon sucks. Stay away.

Re:Try Oregon

[frankmu]

please mod this guy up. it really sucks to live here. it rains ALL the time. Detroit is nice in the summer time.

Re:Try Oregon

[NeMon'ess]

Seriously though, why doesn't Portland have any notable high tech industry like CA or Seattle? Because people didn't notice and start moving to Oregon until the mid 80's?

They let the water flow in to stop the looters...

[majorbytesrulz]

Sure sounds like the easiest solution to me...

URGENT -- PLEASE RELAY.

[Anonymous Coward]

****ALL RESIDENTS ON THE EAST BANK OF ORLEANS AND JEFFERSON REMAINING IN THE METRO AREA ARE BEING TOLD TO EVACUATE AS EFFORTS TO SANDBAG THE LEVEE BREAK HAVE ENDED. THE PUMPS IN THAT AREA ARE EXPECTED TO FAIL SOON AND 9 FEET OF WATER IS EXPECTED IN THE ENTIRE EAST BANK. WITHIN THE NEXT 12-15 HOURS****

Jeff Parish President. Residents will probably be allowed back in town in a week, with identification only, but only to get essentials and clothing. You will then be asked to leave and not come back for one month.

FEMA numbers to begin assistance process 1-800-621-FEMA or http://www.fema.gov./

(Disclaimer; I'm not associated with FEMA. Message copied from wwltv.com. AFAIA conserned this message is provided "as is".)

I think ive got enough karma....

[Jeff Benjamin]

Your forgetting, this is the U.S. We dont need to CONVINCE libya of anything, we just need to liberate them.

Re:I think ive got enough karma....

[Anonymous Coward]

That is exactly why we spent US tax dollars to support Iraq and Saddam while he was actually committing crimes like gasing his own people.

Your straw man is on fire.

Floodway for New Orleans

[erbmjw]

I'm never been to New Orleans but I wonder if it would be possible to use a floodway?

Winnipeg (Manitoba's provincial capital - Canada) has the 47 km Red River floodway that has saved the city from flooding a number of times.

I have just quickly looked at some maps of New Orleans and the surrounding area - it seems to me that a floodway starting west of Lutcher and curving south around the bottom of the city would allow water from the Mississippi river to be diverted into a large reservoir or possibly connect the floodway directly into Little Lake and then out into Barataria Bay.

And No, I'm not talking about diverting the whole river - just redirecting water during potential floods. I think it still would be necessary to build dikes for other areas of New Orleans.

I've included a wikipedia link for the Red River Floodway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Floodway

One way to get more than one use out of a floodway - build it between a seperated highway( freeway) ie the floodway is in the middle of two multi-lane raised ground roads.

Like I said earlier - never been to New Orleans so maybe this idea is way off because of the geography and/or land use.

Re:Floodway for New Orleans

[ksheff]

I think that's what many of the canals in the area are for.

Re:Floodway for New Orleans

[erbmjw]

From what I have seen, the canals seem to be on the northern side of the lower lakes - ie between the lakes and the city. The canals don't seem to have done enough to keep the city from flooding. According to news reports the broken levees on the river and both lakes Pontchartrain and Salvador are contributing to the flooding of the city.

The report that started this Slashdot discussion mentioned that the main flooding would be
1) south of Lake Pontchartrain and north of the river; and
2) south of the river ie north of the lower lakes.

My suggestion is a dedicated ( very large ie 70+- km long) floodway that start further inland and runs south of the southern lakes - it should be capable of diverting a significant amount of water far away from the city. And the diverted water should either be stored in a reservoir or dumped back into the natural watershed well below Lake Salvador.

With the river water diverted south of the lower lakes the riverbed and canals ( and new dikes ) could then be used to divert the floodwaters from Lake Pontchartrain.

Re:Floodway for New Orleans

[DerekLyons]

I have just quickly looked at some maps of New Orleans and the surrounding area - it seems to me that a floodway starting west of Lutcher and curving south around the bottom of the city would allow water from the Mississippi river to be diverted into a large reservoir or possibly connect the floodway directly into Little Lake and then out into Barataria Bay.

There's already such a floodway near Baton Rouge - it's been in place for decades.

And No, I'm not talking about diverting the whole river - just redirecting water during potential floods. I think it still would be necessary to build dikes for other areas of New Orleans.

It's not the river that's causing the current flooding - it's the Lake. The proximate cause of the flooding is the failure of the walls of the floodways meant to drain said lake.

Re:Floodway for New Orleans

[erbmjw]

Does the Baton Rouge floodway take enough water out of the riverbed so that the canals and riverbed running through New Orleans could be used to transfer water away from the city?

I took a quick look and I could not find the Baton Rouge canal on the map I am using. Would you please give me an idea of it's starting and ending locations?

I'll try to look it up again but a quick question -- is the Baton Rouge floodway on the north-west side of New Orleans? and does it run south of Lake Salvador?

I am aware that the greatest flooding is happening because of Lake Pontachartrain overflowing.

I suggested a floodway that runs below the southern Lakes which would reduce the water levels of the riverbed. Then the riverbed running through New Oreleans could then be used in conjunction with the canals and new dikes/floodways to relieve the water presure from the northern lake.

I thought it might be important to redirect the water around Lake Salavador on the southern side of New Orleans as well.

Once again - going to display my ignorance of New Orelans' local geography - In Lutcher the area bounded on the north by the 18, south by the 3127 west by Martin Street and east by Chopin St - anything important there?

erbmjw

Re:Floodway for New Orleans

[DerekLyons]

Does the Baton Rouge floodway take enough water out of the riverbed so that the canals and riverbed running through New Orleans could be used to transfer water away from the city?

It can't possibly do so - because you have an ocean at the other end that will happily make up the lack. The floodway is meant to divert floodwaters coming down, not to reduce the normal level of the river.

I took a quick look and I could not find the Baton Rouge canal on the map I am using. Would you please give me an idea of it's starting and ending locations?

I'll try to look it up again but a quick question -- is the Baton Rouge floodway on the north-west side of New Orleans? and does it run south of Lake Salvador?

You can't find it because it's a riverbed/swamp - not a canal. (The Atcha______ river.) The river was dammed decades ago (and the water mostly diverted to the main stream) to prevent it from cutting a new channel from the river to the Gulf - thus allowing the current bed to silt up and destroying the commercial value of New Orleans.

I suggested a floodway that runs below the southern Lakes which would reduce the water levels of the riverbed. Then the riverbed running through New Oreleans could then be used in conjunction with the canals and new dikes/floodways to relieve the water presure from the northern lake.

Um - the two lakes that threaten New Orleans are *North* of the river. There's no place to drain them to *except* the river if you go to the south. There's already drainage to the Southeast into the river below the city. All of that water is essentially at sea level - there's nowhere to drain it *to* really.

Naturally

[NotQuiteReal]

Bad shit is sad to think about. The natural reaction is that almost anything is "funny" when it happens to someone else.

Or at least it easier to joke about it than to think about it. Hell many people joke about bad stuff that happens to them, personally.

I have no problem simultaneously saying "good riddenance to a stinky, corrupt, crime-ridden city like New Orleans [ha, ha, big picture, funny]" and sending a nice big check to the Red Cross [individuals who really are hurting, empathy]...

What's your point? Misery is the basis of a lot of jokes.

Do Both!

What we really need...

[Zero to Hero]

What we really need is one ginormous sponge, Bob.

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[MAdMaxOr]

Sometimes, one has to wonder if our shortsightedness even has limits.

* Increasing consumption as we run out of oil.
* No legitimate contingincy plan in case of asteroid colision.
* Massive individual credit card debt

and the list goes on... (but feel free to add to it; I want to see what I forgot.)

When...

[DocB]

is the mandatory fly in by George W. (in flight suit) to declare is concern for New Orleans and all of the southeast coast? Perhaps there will be some sound bite opportunities to push his Social Security plan and the war in Iraq.

Re:When...

[scheming daemons]

Well... at least he finally had a reason to end his vacation sooner than expected.

The most-rested President in the history of the country wouldn't be shaken from his month off by anything short of a biblical-sized disaster in a red state.

Maybe Katrina was God's way of saying, "get back to work, George."

If I was the anti-Falwell or anti-Robertson, I might say that Katrina was God's retribution against the red states for voting for President Dumbass.

Re:When...

[scheming daemons]

Well... Dubya cut his vacation short because of Katrina.

Only a disaster of biblical proportions could cause the "Most Rested President in American History" to put the 10-speed away and get back to work.

Maybe Katrina was God's retribution against red states for voting for President Dumbass.

You know that's what Falwell, Robertson, et al would be saying if this disaster hit Boston and the New England area instead.

Only those guys would find a way to blame it on homosexual marriage.

Wonder if the good ol' boys in Mississippi and Louisiana are still in favor of limited government now.

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[jim_v2000]

But it was like 9/11 when many people had been trying to warn the public for years and everyone turned a deaf ear.

Just my opinion, but it was probably a lot more likely a scenario for New Orleans to get hit by a hurricane than for the Twin Towers to get hit by airplanes flow by terrorists.

It's the Money, Stupid

[MSTCrow5429]

What can be done about draining and rebuilding New Orleans in light of the massive flooding, and what can be done to prevent and/or lessen such disasters in the future?

Don't use our money, taken from us by the Feds, to subsidize stupid choices. Maybe before too long, people might decide it's not worth living in a city where you're going to have severe flooding issues on a yearly basis. This also applies well to many other coastal areas.

Re:Leave it alone

[mkoz]

Yes, but my point is intended to be a general one... Every area has a "disaster" of some type... and "we" tend not to be good a judging and evaluating longer term risks. Timescales and "true" evaluations of costs are important.

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[khallow]

Just my opinion, but it was probably a lot more likely a scenario for New Orleans to get hit by a hurricane than for the Twin Towers to get hit by airplanes flow by terrorists.

Well, the frequencies don't actually appear that different. The WTC had two terrorist attacks in 30 years while New Orleans appears to have 34 hurricanes or tropical storms in the past 134 years. Of those storms they had 11 hurricanes hit nearby (rather than tropical storms, "brushes" by hurricanes, or hurricanes that came overland from the Atlantic coast). The frequencies naively appear similar.

panamanian liberation

[dj_virto]

Our government liberated Panama from Columbia so we could dig a big ditch.

Re:panamanian liberation

[furrywithwings]

Colombia, please. Columbia is a school in New York City, and has nothing to do with being a big ditch (although it has quite a few of the people who rhyme with ditch). http://www.columbia.edu/

When will they learn?

[DroopyStonx]

Seriously, I just don't get why these people don't learn. A lot of people right now probably feel like they should feel sorry for them, but these people made a conscious choice to live there knowing full well the consequences.

Year after year they get smacked with hurricanes, sometimes on multiple occasions, yet the common sense to get the hell outta there eludes them. Never once do they think, "Gee, maybe we shouldn't live here since there are HURRICANES EVERY SINGLE YEAR."

This isn't something random, like a tsunami. This is something that repeats itself year after year after year. I mean, it's so frequent they have cute lil names for them that go in alphabetical order.

If you're gonna sit and play in the freeway, don't act all surprised if your ass gets hit by a car.

Something like this happens and people are all shocked and surprised and "devastated". Look at how much money is gonna be wasted fixing this city when in another few years the same exact thing will happen again.

Thousands upon thousands of homes destroyed... imagine what these people cough up for insurance. They need to take this chance to use their insurance money to get the hell outta there and consider it a tough lesson learned.

Anywhere but there...

Many people might think "well all the people in California are pretty stupid too," but earthquakes actually aren't all that bad. The destruction you hear about are often in major structures not properly set up to deal with them - and most homes are just fine. I've been through MANY earthquakes, and as long as you do some proper arranging of things (ie not setting expensive stuff near edges of shelves), you'll be fine.

Re:When will they learn?

[CRCulver]

Louisiana is in a part of the Gulf that doesn't get as effected by hurricanes as other parts. Furthermore, the Mississipi, America's great river, flows into the Atlantic there and is immensely useful for transportation of goods. So, there really had to be a city there, and no one saw a problem most years.

Re:When will they learn?

[HarryCaul]

True. People who don't understand economics or geography are the only people who could question why New Orleans exists where it does.

Most slashdotters live so detached from the physical world the idea of "ports" is beyond them.

Re:When will they learn?

[Synn]

Year after year they get smacked with hurricanes, sometimes on multiple occasions, yet the common sense to get the hell outta there eludes them. Never once do they think, "Gee, maybe we shouldn't live here since there are HURRICANES EVERY SINGLE YEAR."

Actually, I live in Fort Lauderdale that got smacked by Katrina and as long as

1> You realize that any property you own can be destroyed at any time.
2> You're prepared to live without outside access to food, water or power for at least a week or longer.

It's not really all that bad living in a hurricane zone. The problem is with people who have expectations above the reality of their situation.

Re:When will they learn?

[MemoryDragon]

Wait till something really big hits California again.. it is pretty much the same situation.

Re:When will they learn?

[DroopyStonx]

Please, if I shed a tear at every sad event that took place in this world, I'd be a depressed individual. It's not that I'm insensitive or arrogant, I just don't see the need to get worked up about something that people could avoid.

And Gas... has nothing to do with this.

It doesn't surprise me that people are stupid enough to honestly accept "hurricane" as an excuse for why prices are still $1.50 over what they SHOULD be.

Hell, might as well raise it to $5 because all the sheep in this country STILL won't question it and will have no probs grabbing their ankles.

But that's offtopic.. ANYWAY..

Put myself in their shoes? Hah. You couldn't PAY ME to live anywhere along the southern coast. If I was in their shoes, I would pack the family up and move elsewhere, because it's not worth risking completely losing everything you own.

Jobs are everywhere, so the "they can't afford it" thing is just an excuse - anyone can move anywhere at any time, you just need ambition and the motivation to get off your ass and do it.

The point of my original post is - you play with fire, you're gonna get burned. I know all about the geography and the industries down there, and I never said in my original post that I didn't. Just like people who make their living on the fishing boats... yeah it's sad when some of the crew never comes back home, but hey, they knew the dangers before making their choice.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not LAUGHING at them, I just don't understand how people are so shocked and surprised that this could happen.. or people that ask, "why why why". Because you live in a very bad location, that's why.

Stragglers?

[simpl3x]

The stragglers in the hotels who couldn't get a flight? Or, the stragglers in the shacks who couldn't afford to leave?

Re:Stragglers?

[jlanthripp]

See my other replies in this thread.

Links are not credible

[kbogert]

A much better one would be fuckthesouth.com

If he paid money for the website, he must know what he's talking about, right?

Re:What can be done about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know why this is happening to us.

Yep, because terrorists hate our freedom.

apparently, so do hurricanes.

Re:I wonder...how arrogant Americans can be...

[ATLgerm]

Wow. This comment reminds me of what the mayor of nawlins said earlier: "This is our Tsunami." Wow. Think about that a second. By the time all this is over less than 200 people will have lost their lives compared to over 100,000 in southeast asia. I wonder how many of those villagers had insurance? Or job skills and the financial ability to relocate? Whiners! Damn straight! Where's our relief money from Thailand?! Frickin idiots...

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[Spackler]

Calm down dude. They don't have power now, so they cant read the jokes on slashdot. It is the circle of life, on display.

Blame Canada!

[xtal]

The Deportation of the Acadians

Re:Yahoo news article

[jonfields]

Who's to say this wasn't done on purpose by mother nature? Seriously. Have any of you considered that Mother Nature should be our real target of terrorism? Not Iraq.

or STRINGS!

[TexasDex]

Marketing exec: All right, it's water absorbent! It's...Super Absorbent String!
"ABSORB WATER TODAY WITH SIMPSON'S INDIVIDUAL WATER ABSORB-A-TEX STRINGETTES! AWAY WITH FLOODS!"

Mr Simpson: You just said it was waterproof!

Exec: "AWAY WITH THE DULL DRUDGERY OF WORKADAY TIDAL WAVES! USE SIMPSON'S INDIVIDUAL FLOOD PREVENTERS!"

Mr Simpson: You're mad!

Exec: Shut up, shut up, shut up! Sex, sex sex, must get sex into it. Wait, I see a television commercial-

There's this nude woman in a bath holding a bit of your string. That's great, great, but we need a doctor, got to have a medical opinion.

There's a nude woman in a bath with a doctor--that's too sexy. Put an archbishop there watching them, that'll take the curse off it. Now, we need children and animals.

There's two kids admiring the string, and a dog admiring the archbishop who's blessing the string. Uhh...international flavor's missing...make the archbishop Greek Orthodox. Why not Archbishop Macarios? No, no, he's dead... nevermind, we'll get his brother, it'll be cheaper... So, there's this nude woman....

Anyone else?

[bpiltz]

Anyone else read: "9 weeks to pimp out New Orleans"?

Another reason this won't work

[commodoresloat]

If you were dealing with just building over water, you might be fine, but this is New Orleans we're talking about. The alcohol content of the water there makes this entirely impractical.

Re:Another reason this won't work

[Fastball]

And that's just in outlying areas. Near the Tropical Isle, home of the Hand Grenade drink, conditions are quite good as the water there has a high enough grain to sanitize and neutralize bacteria.

Yes, I was a regular customer there on my trips to the Big Easy. For the intrepid, the Dungeon is next door. $10 cover and you'll definitely need scuba now. I also miss Cafe Du Monde. Thank God, I perfected my beignet recipe in time!

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[WatertonMan]

While getting hit by planes wasn't, after abundant warnings and an attempted destruction by terrorists a few years earlier, it shouldn't have been the shock it was. The problem is that we as a culture are reactive rather than proactive.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nerds can spell. Cya later!

Shoe is on the other foot now...

[isotope23]

In the 1830s-1840s over 90 % of federal tax money was collected from the south, while most of the
federal spending was in the north.

I'd say this is reciprocity....

Re:Shoe is on the other foot now...

[NeMon'ess]

Hmm, actually, how about the South goes ahead and seceds now if it still wants to.

Re:Shoe is on the other foot now...

[John Newman]

In the 1830s-1840s over 90 % of federal tax money was collected from the south, while most of the federal spending was in the north.

Got links? I find this rather difficult to believe, since so little of the South's wealth was in mobile, taxable assets. That was exactly why the South had such a hard time raising hard money by taxation duing the war, and finally settled on taxes-in-kind in the form of food and slave labor requisitions. Unless you're referring to customs duties, which I again have a hard time believing were concentrated in the South. The volume of trade to/from the North was much, much larger. And most of those Southern customs duties were paid by the Northern merchants that carried the goods, anyway. Southerners may have screamed about the Tariff, but the reality was that they were "among the most lightly taxed peoples on Earth."

I'm also not sure about most of federal spending being in the North. The North had far more infrastructure, to be sure, but it was paid for parimarily by private money, and secondarily by state funds. The age of federally funded improvements really only came in 1864, when the Republican Congress enacted the Homestead Act, transcontinental railroad subsidies, land grant schools, etc. And then, as now, most military spending was concentrated in the South and West.

So in the absence of sources, I don't believe a word of your snark.

Re:Shoe is on the other foot now...

[zoloto]

I find this rather difficult to believe, since so little of the South's wealth was in mobile, taxable assets

That's because trailer park tennants aren't known for their riches, ya know.

Re:Shoe is on the other foot now...

[domanova]

>> So in the absence of sources, I don't believe a word of your snark.
Ain't that a boojum? Never seen the word used like that, although it is onomat..oenomitoe...sounds right

Re:Shoe is on the other foot now...

[isotope23]

I would suggest this book:

When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession

By Charles Adams.

Disclosure, I was born and raised in the West,
and have never lived in the south.

Long story short, The south being primarily agrarian exported most of its products overseas.
They usually took payment in terms of finished goods, which were thus taxed upon import.

The North East being an industrialized society had a primarily internal market for its finished
goods thus it did not export or import.

The book was a real eye opener for me. His analysis of federal tax receipts from 1830-1840
showed about $107 million, 90 million paid by the south, and only 17 million paid by the north.

He uses a number of international observers to make the point (including Charles Dickens who did a number of articles at the time stating the war was about taxation), and has some great political cartoons from the era to reinforce it.

Re:Leave it alone

[multiplexo]

There is a very good chance that Rainier will go off at some time

Yes, on a geological time scale there is a very good chance that Rainier will go off some time. On a less than geological time scale there's a good chance that a cat 5 is going to smack into the Big Easy on the west side of Lake Pontchartrain, blast through the levees and leave the city even worse off than it is now.

I'll tell you what. I'll compare my volcano insurance premiums for living south of Seattle and close to all of these volcanos with the flood insurance premiums for New Orleans residents. Oh wait, we don't have volcano insurance up here on the left coast, probably for the same reason we don't have meteor strike insurance or monkeys flying out of our asses insurance, so it's not really a fair comparison, and when you factor in the lower premiums guaranteed by the National Flood Insurance Program that FEMA runs, basically government subsidized flood insurance, the comparison becomes even more unfair.

By the way, when you listed all of the cities in your post you forgot about Tokyo, which risks getting stamped flat by Godzilla every once in a while.

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[superyooser]

Here is the antidote to joke-making. It is extremely heart-rending.

This is required viewing for all people of prayer.

Viewing note: Unless you have the ActiveX plugin for Firefox which allows embedded Windows Media, you will need to load the page in Internet Explorer.

really?

[Trepidity]

I don't recall Robertson leading a coup attempt, arresting his opponents, or arming his own private militia.

Re:really?

[meadowsp]

No he's just a preacher of hate who calls for the assasination of democratically elected foreign heads of state. Hardly very christian.

Re:really?

[DerWulf]

can't you read? The grandparent post stated that the guy seized power by military means. Dispute that for a while and then come back with USA IS THE DEVIL.

Re:really?

[meadowsp]

He may have done that in the past, but he's recently won a democratic election and a referendum.

PS: I didn't say anything about USA being the devil, just that one very famous so-called christian doesn't seem to act particularly like one. Or is encouraging other people to break the 10 commandments OK?

Re:Really?

[ifwm]

Because there's nowhere to inhabit between canada and the gulf of Mexico.

Hmm, now that I think about it, there really isn't any place worth inhabiting...

Titanic pumps

[blitz487]

The Titanic, after the collision, ran its bilge pumps full blast until it sank. While the pumps obviously couldn't keep it from sinking, they did add a lot of extra time for the Titanic, saving more lives.

Re:As a Democrat, I blame the Jews

[scrub76]

Kidding aside, one of the saddest aspects of the entire crisis is the absolutely misguided reliance on faith. Before the storm hit, the cable stations kept interviewing people who weren't evacuating because of their 'faith in god.' Even tonight, in the midst of arguably the worst humanitarian and logistical crisis our country will face this decade (if not ever), a senator from either Missisip. or Louisiana appeared on MSNBC and was asked what the viewers could do to help. He responded with something like "pray for us. i firmly believe in the power of prayer." I've got nothing against religion or spirituality, but it seems like in this case it may be impeding progress.

Of course, its easy to Monday morning quarterback from a dry room in Wisconsin.

Mississippi Gulf Coast Damage from Skycopter 3

[TeachingMachines]

While a lot of the media is directed at New Orleans, the major damage can be seen elsewhere. Take a look at this lengthy video clip if you really want to see some jaw dropping footage:
Mississippi Gulf Coast Damage from Skycopter 3. It looks a lot like the images of tsunami a while back.

Well, actually ...

[Melllvar]

From today's Financial Times:

Europe will need to send some of its strategic emergency stockpiles of petrol to the US if refinery damage caused by Hurricane Katrina proves severe, the International Energy Agency, which co-ordinates the emergency inventories of the world's biggest oil consuming countries, said on Monday.

No greater love hath one post-industrial nation-collective have than this, that they lay down their refined gasoline supplies for another.

That's provided, of course, that we determine that we actually need it. One of the chief reasons we don't get foreign aid is that we never actually ask for any.

So if they decide to rebuild the city elsewhere...

[gamer4Life]

...will the new city be called "New New Orleans"?

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[celle]

I already had my disaster last year. At least you had some warning(day and a half) and were told to leave. We had none. I can't be sympathetic about people too stupid to leave during a mandatory evacuation. You hung yourselves in a man made disaster prone area, take responsibility for it and die. I had to pull myself out of my disaster. FEMA helped me little to nothing. I had to fight the insurance company for every dime.(no government help) Bush will be running to fund your asses, there weren't enough voters in my disaster for him to care(fund support for local government not the public). At least mine was an actual natural disaster and not a man-made one. You got what was coming now take heed and move somewhere else.

Boobies

[lax-goalie]

>>"I stayed in their hotels, ate their food and patronized their stores."

>You forgot "looked at their boobies"

Isn't it more like ""looked at other tourist's boobies"?

But what about Mardi Gras?

[circusboy]

Who will take up the slack?

Re:But what about Mardi Gras?

[Pensacola Tiger]

Mobile, Alabama, where the parades started to begin with.

Re:Leave it alone

[aminorex]

the port of southern louisiana stretches over 50 miles of coast. it's not part of new orleans.
what it is however is the heart of american commerce. it's the 5th largest tonnage port in the world, far bigger than houston or new york/new jersey. also, 95% of the oil coming from the gulf has stopped flowing -- that's 15% of national consumption. the impact of this storm is going to be enormous and last for years.

International Relief

[airider]

Funny, I don't see anyone from the international community jumping to our aid. When the tsunami hit Indonesia, people were screaming at the U.S. to "give, give, give". Now that we've had our own "tsunami", where's the comeback. The oil rich countries are making a killing this year on the U.S. buying it price gouging oil, where's the damn help? Next time someone has a problem, I say go F*&% YOURSELF, international community.

Re:International Relief

[EllF]

Yeah! We (and the international community) helped incredibly poor countries because they could not afford to rebuild after a natural disaster -- now we want our money back!

Oh, wait.

Re:International Relief

[cruachan]

A couple of hundred people and one major city is hardly on the same scale as a hundreds of thousands dead and and half a million or more homeless.

On raw stats less than 1% as bad.

USA - richest country in the world

[booch]

Not true. Luxemburg has a much higher GDP per capita. And several other countries are about equal to the US. Especially if you take into account other factors, such as national debt, savings/investment rates, standards of living, expected life-span, etc.

Re:Leave it alone

[Gramie2]

My God, that's it! This hurricane was manufactured by Osama bin Laden using the nefarious resources of Afghanistan. Er, Iraq. No, Syria. Wait, I mean Iran.

The terrorists must pay for their wanton destruction of American property!

That Prophetic Band...

[govt-serpent]

20 years ago predicted this.

Katrina and The Waves!

I'm going to hell..

Re:Leave it alone

[chris_eineke]

Folks, it doesn't get much worse than this.. except for death... and some folks bought that ticket.

Sorry, but that's a big steaming pile of bullshit.

Do you really care about your physical belongings? That iPod in the cradle? That laptop on the desk? That chair you're sitting on? That room your chair is in? The fridge in the kitchen? The paint on the wall?

I don't.

I care about my family members, my father, my mom, my siblings, grandparents, or event great-grandparents. I don't give a flying fuck for the drywalls and the carpets! Belongings can be replaced. Family members cannot.

I think you should get your priorities straight.

How to avoid this situation is very simple.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

DON'T LIVE THERE.

I think New Orleans may be the first "National Sacrifice" area in the new Warmer Earth. Regardless of WHY the planet is warming, the fact is, IT IS, and places like New Orleans and Holland are going to get fucked.

So, DON'T LIVE THERE.

Especially as Energy increases in price, these kinds of disasters will become increasingly difficult to recover from. Since "New" Orleans can't be New New Orleans, maybe we can rebuilt it farther upstream and on higher ground, and call it something like "Big Easytown" or "Steaming Shithole for stupid alkies"... or something more whimsical like MardiGrasVille....

RS

where are Shirley Laska and uno.edu? Safe we hope?

[wherrera]

The Web presence of Shirley Laska, the author of the "prescient study" in question, along with the entire IP block of the University of New Orleans--representing thousands of Netizens--has in the last 48 hours disappeared from the face of the internet. Perhaps the Net itself is designed to survive a disaster in a single location, but modern communications, even the internet (maybe, based on these events, _especially_ the internet) seem to be completely, blindingly inadequate to cope with a natural disaster of this magnitude at the location of the disaster itself. Can the Net help what it cannot see?

Re:Why are all the looters black?

[HermanAB]

Because they are the poorest of the poor, who could not afford to leave the city and who are now hungry and scavenging for food and drink. There are some looting of high value stuff, but 'stealing' food is perfectly acceptable actually and probably perfectly legal under these circumstances.

Time for the greatest engineering project?

[MtViewGuy]

Maybe this might be the very chance to maybe do what could be the greatest engineering project of the 21st Century: replace New Orleans and carve out a new, safer outlet for the Mississippi River.

It could be breathtakingly expensive (maybe as much as US$3 trillion in 2005 dollars), but it may be worth it if not only do we get a city that will be far less flood-prone to both the rising Mississippi Rive and the the occasional hurricane, but also a completely new, state-of-the-art shipping port that could be the biggest and most advanced in the world.

Re:Time for the greatest engineering project?

[Fastball]

Who shit in your coffee this morning?

Fix It from Top to Bottom

[Doc Ruby]

Why don't we impeach Bush, who cut the funding for New Orleans preparations for an inevitable storm like Katrina?

"Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. "

We've heard Bush tell us war requires sacrifice. So he's cut taxes for the rich, which has salvaged the economy only for the rich. That sacrifice is coming only from the thousands of people who have died in Iraq, and now the rest of the country will start to feel the neglect. It's a shame that New Orleans, whose citizens voted to get rid of Bush, was the first undeniable sacrifice to cover our TVs. But they won't be the last.

The question is whether we will sacrifice Bush himself to save ourselves, or whether the $45TRILLION in debts he's so far committed us to will sacrifice us to his agenda instead. New Orleans is down the drain now. Will we all follow it? Or will we toss out the crap that's rotting inside us, all the way at the top?

Army dropping giant sandbags

[WhiteWolf666]

At least thats what this article says.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N30306795 .htm

God help us if it fails. Not that I live in New Orleans, but if it really does stay flooded with 10-20' of water for 9 weeks, there won't be anything left, especially of the beautiful portions, like the French Quarter.

As it is, if the city dried out tomorrow, it would take a month to determine the safety of various buildings, and another month to repair them.

2 months for pumping, 2 months for repair.
In all honest, that would be the end of the city.

Right now, the federal government needs to give the army corp of engineers an unlimited budget to fix the leeves & pumping system as fast as physically possible.

Quite frankly, loosing New Orleans, one of the most historic cities in the U.S., would be a great tradgey. We're spending any unlimited amount of money to rescue everyone who remains stranded in the city; I hope the government maintains this level of urgency for the repair operations.

Re:Army dropping giant sandbags

[cruachan]

Cities can always be rebuilt. After WWII Warsaw was a pile of rubble, but the Poles rebuilt it to look the same as before. There's numerous other examples all over Europe. New Orleans was only a couple of hundred years old, so it's not like there's anything really tricky to do there.

Re:Army dropping giant sandbags

[psykocrime]

Right now, the federal government needs to give the army corp of engineers an unlimited budget to fix the leeves & pumping system as fast as physically possible.

And where, pray tell, does the money for this "unlimited budget" come from???

Quite frankly, loosing (sic) New Orleans, one of the most historic cities in the U.S., would be a great tradgey.(sic)

Tragic it might be, but that does not justify taking money from everybody else in the country, to rebuild Nola. What happens when another hurricane hits next week, say in NC, and the people there need their money to rebuild their own cities and towns?

Of course anybody who lives in NO should be free to spend their own money on repair and reconstruction if they want. But neither I, nor anyone else, should not be forced to help foot the bill for rebuilding a city that probably should not be rebuilt.

A city that's built in a below sea-level bowl, near a major river and lake, in a hurricane strike prone area is simply a bad idea. As another posted asked, when do you stop rebuilding when you're located in a danger prone area? 3rd time's the charm? 100th? 10,000th?

This is about as smart as those people in CA who knowingly build their houses in wildfire prone areas, and then act surprised when their homes burn down.

Re:Army dropping giant sandbags

[Maxo-Texas]

There is a way for people to voluntarily share the load for costs like this and that is insurance. If insurance companies won't offer coverage then either you pay the full cost and take the full risk or you don't build there.

If you want to donate your OWN money (as I have already done) or your own time (which I'm considering) to help those affected by this then more power to you. It's your money and your time.

I can agree with a limited federal disaster fund but that should be tied to not recreating the disaster again (which rebuilding new orleans would be). New Orleans needs to be moved or raised. It seems to me with all the money they make they could have been raising the city inside the levees. The Superdome might not have been needed if 180 million had been spent on dirt and stone to bring the area inside the levees up to a couple feet above sea level.

Re:Army dropping giant sandbags

[ArtStone]

Unforunately, New Orleans is having to relearn the lessons from the Great Chicago Flood (1992). If you build things below the level of the surrounding water, the hydrostatic pressure is unstoppable once the system restraining the water is breached. Just like Houdini could escape bank safes because they are built to keep people in - not keep people inside from getting out - a levee is generally not designed to deal with water on the inside. The only way you can begin to get control of the situation is when the pressure equalizes - then you can drive piles into the breach and and stop the flow - and begin the process of pulling the water back out. That took several MONTHS.

Making New Orleans much worse is that the land is NOT on bedrock. You have to go down 70 feet to reach bedrock. If New Orleans was on bedrock, it would not have sunk over the past decades. (Don't build your house on sand?)

One of the concerns in Chicago was that once the flood was stopped, if the water was pulled out too fast, it would cause uneven settling of the ground, and buildings would collapse.

In the case of Chicago, the tunnels that were flooded had extremely thick walls and they held up well - so removing the water didn't cause the kind of stresses that were anticipated. New Orleans will probably be a very different situation, since there will be months for the water to saturate the ground and undermine the foundations.

Re:My .Great Wall

[PigIronBob]

Wrong, the Dutch Delta Plan as it is called consist of enough raw material to rebuild the Great Wall... TWICE

Re:International Relief - Canada

[erbmjw]

"Canada sent condolences to the victims and offered help.

Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan said she told Michael Chertoff, the U.S. secretary of homeland security, that Canada was ready to provide assistance if needed."

from
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pag ename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1 125397185530&call_pageid=968332188492&col=96879397 2154&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS%2F7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[Maxo-Texas]

Of the things to joke about, death is one of the funnier things- second only to someone else falling into a sewer just before slipping on the expected banana peel.

Why should we dwell on all the bad things as you ask when instead we can find something to laugh about. Millions of people die terrible, painful, untimely deaths every day around the world. Have you been avoiding laughing your entire life, every day, to honor those who die untimely deaths each day?

Help the people in trouble and if at all possible find some way to help them laugh- sometimes laughter is the only way to stay sane. In any case, we have a right to laugh about anything we find funny (and you have a right to bitch about it).

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[Anonymous Coward]

> No legitimate contingincy plan in case of asteroid colision.

Plan in case of Asteroid Collision:

1. dress in all black, except for white sneakers
2. castration
3. cloth over your head
4. take heroic dose of something
5. lay down, wait for the comet
6. !?!?
7. Prophet!

Re:Leave it alone

[Maxo-Texas]

People stop talking to sisters, brothers, parents and children for the rest of their life every day.

People end long friendships every day.

Friends and family are nice but "stuff" can be more dependable and harder to replace than people. You can almost always find more friends (and even start a new family) if you have cool stuff and/or money to have fun with.

Re:Neo Orleans

[maddh]

I've already drawn up plans, but I put the city in the lake to the north.
Neo Orleans, floating megacity.
I've got images too
Neo Orleans

Re:Why are all the looters black?

[Anonymous Coward]

nola.com was reporting that police were facilitating the looting of food and essentials from area Wal-Marts, and the people getting said food and essentials basically outnumbered the police 20 to 1 and went berserk, grabbing flat-screen TVs and those crappy Linspire computers they sell.

That doesn't explan all the looting, but the Wal-Mart was where it was worst. That Wal-Mart was gutted, and when you think about that, it's definately a feat to pull off - removing every single item of any value from a store that big, without any real vehicles or equipment, in a matter of hours.

Re:Don't miss this National Geographics article

[wasted time]

I posted this NG article in the previous story so it's a dupe, but a damn eerie one.

Arizona has plenty of water

[ccmay]

Would the Phoenix-Tucson area support the current population if not for large western dams?

Something like 80% of Arizona's water usage goes to farms. The way water is used on these farms is shockingly inefficient.

Arizona could sustain two or three times its current population with surface water sources if not for agricultural usage.

The farmers and other big water users have always held a great deal of political power in the arid West, but that is changing. When housewives in Scottsdale see the grass in their yards dying off because of mandatory water restrictions, the current allocations will be changed in the blink of an eye.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, or a bad thing. It just is.

-ccm

Re:Arizona has plenty of water

[Grishnakh]

I have a tiny patch of grass in my back yard, but if we have any water problems I'll be happy to turn off the sprinklers and not worry about mowing the grass any more. But all these other east coasters moving in here might not like that.

Re:Arizona has plenty of water

[NutscrapeSucks]

When housewives in Scottsdale see the grass in their yards dying off because of mandatory water restrictions, the current allocations will be changed in the blink of an eye.

Not quite, becuase those water allocations are a "right" and not a matter of political twiddling. The farming interests would have to be bought out, and that can be quite expensive.

Re:Arizona has plenty of water

[Scudsucker]

I would think the rights of a few thousand people being forced to give up their livelihood would be kind of outweighed by a few million people being forced to move.

Plenty of warning - not too many casualties

[Animats]

For the size of the disaster, the number of casualties is small. There was plenty of warning, and evacuation routes had been prepared. Everybody who obeyed the order to evacuate go out in time.

The biggest weakness of the evacuation system is that it only worked if you had a car. This left poor people, elderly, and tourists trapped. The airlines cancelled flights too early, and buses weren't used for evacuation.

Re:Plenty of warning - not too many casualties

[twistedcubic]

Everybody who obeyed the order to evacuate go out in time.

This is not true, but you shouldn't be surprised because you have no way of knowing either. Flights were cancelled at the last minute. Greyhound cancelled it's trips. Many poor people don't have cars, and don't have access to a car. Many people don't have family outside of New Orleans, or anywhere. MOST poor people can't afford a hotel for more than a day, and MOST poor people don't have credit cards. So many went to the Superdome or the Convention Center, which were opened for this purpose. You wouldn't be so blissfully ignorant if it weren't so curturally acceptable nowadays, so you can blame others for that as well.

they were told they couldn't return for weeks

[YesIAmAScript]

Actually, before Katrina turned to the east to hit Gulfport, the estimate was 4 months.

If you leave, you cannot return, they won't let you back until the place is "safe". And with people there to loot, what would you return to after 4 months, or 1?

I think many people stayed to guard their houses. I know many people said they stayed in places (not necessarily their homes) that weren't touched by Camille. Except this turned out to be worse, at least in Mississippi and Alabama.

Re:they were told they couldn't return for weeks

[Fastball]

Funny thing about the looting. Food is one thing. I don't consider looting of food and necessities in this case to be looting. But looting anything else like electronics and jewelry, which I have seen in some reports, is like lipstick on a pig. Even if you find a way out of the city, you can't take that shit with you.

Interesting. If you're a professional thief, the kind that arranges shit months in advance, and has money in reserve to conduct a big heist...if you can find a way into the city, you could have the run of the lot. There's got to be untold wealth in bearer bonds alone that you could get to. Wow. I'm scared that I actually thought of this.

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[MCTFB]

Well what you say about humor has scientific theories to back it up, however, the problem is that few if any of these jokes on Slashdot are even remotely funny.

Quality humor involves tact and timing and frankly many of these jokes have neither.

Simply put, people who make anonymous jokes about people who would not even possibly laugh at the jokes themselves are really just cowards looking for attention.

If they had any balls at all in thinking that their jokes are actually funny, they would tell their jokes in a public square where they could be stoned to death if by some chance people don't find jokes about innocent, suffering, and helpless people to be funny at all.

People laugh at jokes about people who actually deserve to be laughed at (e.g. Michael Jackson), but trying to find jokes about victims from a once in a 500 year disaster that everyone can laugh at is a pretty hard thing to do.

So far, maybe one joke in this thread was even halfway decent, and the rest are just from trolls who couldn't be funny if their life depended on it.

Ahh the Free Market

[sheldon]

A Free Market has a solution for everything.

In the case of food shortages, the Free Market regulates the demand.

i.e. people die

Now, I'm a believer in a capitalistic system, and I think a market economy has many good things to be said for it. But it needs to be held on a leash.

Re:Ahh the Free Market

[mrscorpio]

I suggest you read the Federalist Papers someday, and Wealth of Nations, to see how wrong you are.

But, in short summary, how do people get aid in food shortages now? Charity, but it is forced by government, who gets their cut ("administrative expenses"). How does the free market take care of this? Charity, only through people like you and me going directly through private organizations that, while having their own administrative costs, are far more efficient and accountable.

Government is good at 3 things:

1) governing (ha!)
2) military
3) foreign relations

Everything else should be handed by private processes. That is, if you believe in the principles upon which this country was founded.

Re:Ahh the Free Market

[cheesybagel]

But, in short summary, how do people get aid in food shortages now? Charity, but it is forced by government, who gets their cut ("administrative expenses"). How does the free market take care of this? Charity, only through people like you and me going directly through private organizations that, while having their own administrative costs, are far more efficient and accountable.

That is a lot of neo-liberal rhetoric disproved by past history. Private charity sure did not help the Irish during the XIXth century famine, a famine caused in fact by the free market policies from the leading capitalist nation at the time (the UK). Even before that, speculation on the price of wheat led to the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon to power. The reaction of the monarchs of France to the rise in the price of bread was feeble. Ignore history at your peril.

I love free markets, but they are not a solution for everything. For disaster relief pure free market policies usually lead to short term misery and death. Most people tend to try to go by without insurance because they see no immediate benefits from it, then when the shit hits the fan, everyone gets affected, directly or indirectly.

History shows private charity is manifestly insuficient to solve a lot of problems. Government sponsored charity can be of benefit, and it saddens me to not see it used more. For example, after WWII we managed to erradicate smallpox. Why haven't we erradicated polio and malaria as well?

Re:Ahh the Free Market

[DerWulf]

except there hasn't been a food shortage in any *free* country! And guess what, many a russian today lives because the USA shipped tons and tons of wheat to the benevolent communists! So your pick: a system that is so inefficient it can't feed it's people on a *regular basis* or a system where food is so dirt cheap that the biggest problem of those societies seems to be that people get to damn fat.

Re:Ahh the Free Market

[rsynnott]

Define 'free', please.

Re:Ahh the Free Market

[sheldon]

Interesting, because I've read a great deal of Adam Smith, his contemporaries and I'm not sure exactly how wrong I am. Smith never advocated anarchy, he simply advocated for making the rules clear up front, and keeping government from mucking around too much.

Honestly, on the subject of charities. I don't much trust them, because they are by and large inefficient and unaccountable. You're in lala land if you can't see that many charities exist these days just to maintain their existance. If you don't believe me, go work with one.

I spent 4 years working with a local community group, about 75% of our fundraisers went to paying for our offices and equipment to run fundraisers.

Re:Ahh the Free Market

[sheldon]

Technically... The Irish famine wasn't caused by free-market policies. It was caused by the British not allowing the Irish to be free.

Of course, most proponents of "Free Market" today aren't really advocating for a free market. They want freedom for themselves, and restrictions for everybody else. That's the Republican agenda, anyway...

Re:Ahh the Free Market

[sheldon]

Why do I have to pick either one of your choices? Neither of which matches the reality of what happens in the world.

I don't think in terms of black and white.

Re:Ahh the Free Market

[mrscorpio]

If you think what I described is anarchy, then you don't know what anarchy is. I clearly mentioned that government needs to exist, and the three functions it is intended to administer as set up by the framers of the Constitution.

Re:Ahh the Free Market

[DerWulf]

how does it not match reality? Commies (ppl living in communist/socialist countries) are starving while caps get obscene. What's your reality?

you think people don't have empathy?

[YesIAmAScript]

You're objecting to feelings, not words. How do you know those who make the jokes aren't feeling empathy? You're pretty presumptive to say you know what others are feeling.

As to letting others live their lives, you specifically took time out to lecture people on what they should (more accurately shouldn't) do. To me, that's just unwarranted and unnecessary. Let these people be, you're sure not going to make them have any respect they don't already have by telling them how wrong they are.

Re:you think people don't have empathy?

[FunWithHeadlines]

"As to letting others live their lives, you specifically took time out to lecture people on what they should (more accurately shouldn't) do."

You mean the way you just did to me?

;) See how easy it is?

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[Ibag]

"But it was like 9/11 when many people had been trying to warn the public for years and everyone turned a deaf ear."

Given the similarities to 9/11 (a horrible but predictible tragedy that people wanted to ignore until it hit), I wonder what the aftermath will be. Of course, the nation will lend a hand, we will resolve to face the aftermath with courage, and we will rebuild. But what next? Perhaps people will cry that the severity of recent hurricanes is due to globaal warming, due in part to fossil fuels, due in part to iranian oil, and this will be justification for another war? Perhaps people will question the nature of god, some declaring war on god while others decry New Orleans as a den of sin and vice?

Recent tragedy has been channeled into vengence, and I fear where this might lead. Somehow, someone will take the blame. At least life is strangely amusing and highly televised.

THE REAL STORY. (Watch it get SUPPRESSED...)

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/artic le_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

Newhouse News Service, in an article posted late Tuesday night at The Times-Picayune web site, reported: "No one can say they didn't see it coming....Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."

In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to a Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness.

Re:THE REAL STORY. (Watch it get SUPPRESSED...)

[jaguar5150]

I wouldn't completely blame the powers that be as it is a natural disaster, however, (according to this blurb) plans were in place to upgrade infrastructure to alleviate the potential problems that are now obviously very real. There is obviously an inverse relationship between war spending and the inflow of federal money to fund these sorts of projects.

Re:THE REAL STORY. (Watch it get SUPPRESSED...)

[letxa2000]

Great, I feel better now. I was wondering how long it would be before someone found a way to blame the Hurricane Katrina damage and New Orleans on Bush. Good work, your liberal masters would be proud.

Seriously, guys, Bush-bashing really went out of style about November 3rd of last year. Not everything that goes wrong in the world is Bush's fault--especially friggin' natural disasters. Beacon of truth: New Orelans would be just as destroyed today regardless of whether there was a war in Iraq or whether Bush had or hadn't won in 2000 and again in 2004. You build a below-sea-level city on the coast of the ocean in a hurricane zone and, sooner or later, that city will be destroyed and there's nothing that any president, governor, or mayor can do to prevent that. Humans are nothing compared to the forces of nature. You might as well try to blame the Mt. St. Helens eruption back in 1980 on President Carter.

It's time some liberals get a clue-by-four and stop trying to blame everything on Bush. It was funny at first, tiring later, and now it's just bitter, childish sour-grapes that make those same liberals look like fools. When you blame natural disasters on Bush, you've really gone too far to retain anything resembling credibility.

Re:THE REAL STORY. (Watch it get SUPPRESSED...)

[aldousd666]

Sure, there may have been more money allocated, but I doubt they'd have taken 20 foot storm surge into account in any case. You just don't plan for that sort of thing.

On an only slightly related note, I have a problem in general with giving credit or laying blame at the feet of heads of state for economies, environmental disorders, or even great successes.

Who was president when we started the industrial revolution in the US? Maybe we should blame him for all of our current CO2 problems. What turns out to be "bad" now is only in the aftermath of what we thought was good in another case.

I'm not exactly a Bush fan, but I wouldn't blame him for the economy either. No matter what a president does or says, he cannot create even a single job in say.. the manufacturing sector. He cannot lower gasoline prices. It's not that there is some magic button he just refuses to push, it's just that people like to think that these things are in someone's control. They aren't. Why does the stock market fluctuate? Occasionally because of something someone says, or one company does, but it's a collective thing overall.

By the same token, and on the other hand, the White House, whether we like the guy in it or not, has no business taking credit for a booming economy either.

You can indeed argue with me over one point or another, and on a small time scale, the president can affect things that happen. But overall, let us remember that congress makes the laws (er including social security and environmental policy), the Federal Reserve sets the Prime Rate, and the market determines prices through supply and demand. Unfortunately, there is no single human being who can make all of these things nice and slap happy for all of us, and there never will be.

Re:THE REAL STORY. (Watch it get SUPPRESSED...)

[letxa2000]

the GP wasn't blaming bush for the occurrence of the hurricane.

That was understood, Anonymous Coward, and I did not claim otherwise.

he/she was talking about the effects of the politics which are making the hurricane's impact much, much worse than it needed to be.

And that's what I'm saying is B.S. The "natural" part of this was the hurricane. The "disaster" part is the effects it is causing along the coast. There's no evidence that anything Bush has (or hasn't) done has made those effects "worse".

and yes, bush is at least somewhat to blame, and it's pretty easy to see why.

Yes, because you're a liberal moron that blames everything on Bush. You're right, it's very easy to see that. You are transparent.

the money that was supposed to continue to go towards fixing the levees around new orleans went instead to the iraq war.

Prove it! Prove that New Orleans received less money because of the Iraq war. And once you've done that (if you can do that), prove that it would've made a difference? The dang levees broke! What would've been done with this money that was supposedly diverted to Iraq that would've prevented a hurricane and massive flooding from destroying the leveess?

if the money had been there, the shoring up of the levees would have been completed, and the flooding would have been a fraction of what it is.

Uh huh, and you know that how? It is perfect arrogance to believe we can hold back the sea, much less an angry sea churned up by a massive hurricane. You seem to have no understanding of the forces involved and significantly over-estimate money's ability to solve this problem.

The problem is not money. The problem is the very poor location of New Orleans. No amount of money can fix that.

bush didn't make katrina, but he did make her worse.

What a load of unsupported crap you're shoveling there, Anonymous Coward.

p.s. "liberal" is not an epithet. i'd be more than a little surprised if you even knew what the word meant.

I didn't use liberal as a epithet. Ironically, it seems to be the liberals themselves that see the use of that word as an epithet. Telling, really.

p.p.s. bush-bashing might have gone out of style among those idiots who voted for him, but the rest of the world has just gotten started.

I rest my case. Go back to your cave, troll.

Re:THE REAL STORY. (Watch it get SUPPRESSED...)

[letxa2000]

no, you did use liberal as an epithet. so i guess you don't know what liberal or epithet means.

Hmmm, no, I know what both liberal and epithet means and I most certainly didn't use the former as the latter. Unless you have some special insight into my original message that I, as the author, don't have, you really have no case. I used the word "liberal" to mean exactly what it means: a liberal. That would only be considered an epithet by someone that considers the word "liberal" to be offensive. Now who would that be? Ironically, it's usually the liberals. :)

i overestimated your intelligence, but i'm sure that's not a new experience for you.

This from the person who then writes...

you fuckers use liberal as an epithet constantly these days.

I'm glad you have such an awesome command of the English language. The fact that we call liberals liberals and that we do not agree with the liberals does not make the word "liberal" an epithet. It remains an accurate description of a group of people. That that group of people is offended by being called exactly what they are is very telling. So is the fact that you do resort to the use of epithets in your reply.

Frankly, if I were a liberal and someone called me a liberal I'd say, "Damn straight, you better believe I'm a liberal!" Sadly (though understandably), many liberals don't like to admit what they are. Strange, isn't it? :)

G'day, my uneducated, vulgar, and liberal anonymous coward.

Re:THE REAL STORY. (Watch it get SUPPRESSED...)

[AndreyF]

I've seen a lot of people say things like this, but I'll be damned if I ever understand it. Just because it was an accident nobody could prevent doesn't mean it's impossible to prepare for it. Seatbelt laws save lives, although car accidents can't be prevented. Although you can't prevent casualties in a war, body armor saves lives. And although hurricanes can't be prevented, being prepared for them can save lives.

And if the administration has been fear-mongering and using terrorism as a political tool, leaving people unprepared for real harm, they should most definately be held responsible.

Re:THE REAL STORY. (Watch it get SUPPRESSED...)

[Shakrai]

You might as well try to blame the Mt. St. Helens eruption back in 1980 on President Carter.

Something tells me if 100,000 people had been trapped by Mt. St. Helens and it took the Feds three or four days to even start getting food, water and law & order to them then President Carter would have been (rightfully) roasted by the Republican's of the time.

Re:THE REAL STORY. (Watch it get SUPPRESSED...)

[The Evil Couch]

I did a quick search on google for "national guard" and "new orleans" and got a story from CNN saying that the national guard arrived there late tuesday. Given that Katrina made landfall early monday, that makes for about a 48 hour response time.

You've obviously never been part of a military deployment, but that's fast, man. There's a good amount of prep work that has to be done in order to deploy forces anywhere for any reason. Equipment and vehicles have to be inspected. Ammunition and mission-critical equipment has to be issued. Plans have to formulated, rehearsed and implemented. Not to mention that you have to put the unit on lock-down and get total accountability for every soldier and every sensitive item.

Truth be told, the only people we have able to deploy in under 24 hours are stone-cold killers. Most units, especially national guard units (they have pretty light control over their men, since they generally only "work" on the weekends) take several days to a week to deploy.

Granted, the main body of the National Guardsmen didn't show up until 4 days after landfall. 4 days is a long time to those crying in a shelter somewhere, but about standard for the national guard.

I'm pretty damned liberal for an infantry sergeant, but you can't pick at the weekend warriors for lying down on the job.

As much as I'd like to heap some blame on Bush, the response times from the federal government have been ranging from "as expected to fast". All in all, a job well done. Not perfectly. But not bad.

Re:THE REAL STORY. (Watch it get SUPPRESSED...)

[compro01]

maybe you should book an opthamolagist appointment soon, as you don't seem to have been able to read all of the parent post.

NO ONE (or atleast no one with brains) is blaming bush for the huricane. they're blaming him for not doing enough to prevent the damage (preperation for it) that it has caused. as the grandparent pointed out.

Re:THE REAL STORY. (Watch it get SUPPRESSED...)

[aldousd666]

I did read it, and in my first line I said, even if they had not cut the funding, NOBODY would have ever imagined that they should build a wall that would withstand 20 foot storm surge. They may have done some things that would have improved things a bit, but it would not have made this into a bike ride.

Also, as for the speed of the response, you can't expect to distribute food and water instantly to a million people when the landscape isn't accessible. Even in the Tsunami releif they didn't have to worry about land being statically flooded, so that was even a better condition for relief. I'd say 4 or 5 days is a good run at it, even though that's unfortunate for those who were on the receiving end.

There just isn't someone to blame for it. The universe wasn't crafted to have people living in it, so theres an example in living color.

I honestly don't know...

[sheldon]

"I don't think anyone would take issue with it as long as he kept up the anti-American rhetoric."

Frankly, this should concern us. How is it that someone can gain popularity by saying they hate America?

Sigh... I remember when they used to cheer for our President when he went on trips to foreign nations. Sad that was only 5 years ago now. :-(

Re:I honestly don't know...

[metamatic]

How is it that someone can gain popularity by saying they hate America?

Please tell me that's a rhetorical question.

Re:I honestly don't know...

[ccp]

Frankly, this should concern us. How is it that someone can gain popularity by saying they hate America?

Not to pick on your fine post, but you don't travel abroad much, true?

Best wishes,

Carlos Cesar

My God

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotters sure are a rude and discompassionate group of people.

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[Anonymous Coward]

This is required viewing for all people of prayer.

Yes, because those of us who don't pray wouldn't have the moral capacity to care. Never an opportunity lost to show off that cross on your sleeve, huh?

You've GOT to be kidding.

[MtViewGuy]

Excuse me, but thanks to modern communications technology, the President can easily contact anyone in the world from anywhere in the world, which means he can have what amounts to a full function White House anywhere he goes. During President Bush's stay at his ranch near Crawford, TX, I'm sure the White House Communications Office moved in a full communications suite that can do everything from calling ordinary people on landline links to full command of the military in event of nuclear attack. Besides, I'm sure that they parked both Air Force One (VC-25A) and the National Airborne Operations Center (E-4B) planes as close to Crawford, TX as possible for use for any contingency.

Re:You've GOT to be kidding.

[Aqua OS X]

That's bullshit. If you're the President of the United States you drop everything you're doing, get down there, and survey the damage with your own eyes.

He has two offices that fly. There is no excuse. Teleconferencing, no matter how advanced, ain't going to cut it.

Residual water?

[SonicSpike]

What are they going to do with the water inside the city?

It is filled with chemicals, gas, corpses, disease, you name it.. Dumping it into the lake or into the ocean right on down the Mississippi doesn't sound like a great idea but what else are they going to do with it?

Filtering it would take WAY too long and cost too much money. It looks to me that in this case they are going to have to make a choice between money, lives, the city and the environment.

Re:Residual water?

[jackbird]

they are going to have to make a choice between money, lives, the city and the environment.

Three guesses which one wins and which comes in last, and the first 2 don't count.

Insurance companies have insurance of their own

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Everything over "a few" billion dollars will be paid by some little-known, usually offshore companies in a business called "reinsurance". They're kind of like wholesalers for insurance coverage. The insurance companies you know and (cough) love pay premiums to reinsurance firms for excess loss coverage.

Reinsurers got hurt by Hurricane Andrew. In betweeen rare disasters they bring in oceans of money.

Re:Insurance companies have insurance of their own

[ashot]

well thats cool. what about reinsurers, do they subsidize the risk to someone else? or is it some continuous heiarchy of riskiness?

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[ricky-road-flats]

Think I'm being overly dramatic? Think again. This is going to wind up being the worst natural disaster in U.S. history, and what I'm seeing on /. are jokes? I know the usual flippant response is 'hey dude, this is a valid response to tragedy.'

OK, what has happened is unfortunate, nasty and tragic. However, a few things spring to mind...

1. Yes, humour is how we cope. I'm English and we have plenty of London bomb jokes already. This doesn't mean I find the idea of bombs going off or people being flooded out of their homes remotely funny, it's just a coping mechamisn. If you really look at what's going on in the world, humour's the only way to stay sane.

2. Think about the people in the Superdome without air conditioning? Please. Think about the majority of people on the planet who have never had air conditioning, reliable clean water, cheap power and fuel. Given disasters like this and worse happen all the time, they are lucky to have the resources of the richest country of the world to help them. A few days or weeks of inconvenience is all they have, then the vast majority will be right back to their normal fat western lifestyle.

3. This happens in the US, and it's our (in England) top news story. WHY? Much worse disaters happen all the time in India, China, Africa, South America, and they get far less of a mention. Makes me sick. I'm not anti-American as such, but our media seem to have a bit of a fixation the general population here don't share.

Anyway to wrap up, nasty, horrible, tragic, yes. But why, given a whole ocntinent to play with, build cities below sea level next to huge rivers and oceans? Same reason to build SF and LA on the San Andreas fault, I suppose. They had days of warning, and live in weak wooden homes close to sea level in a known hurrican-prone area. They are not starving to death like many thousands did in Africa on the same day.

Re:Water City - Faulty Fingering?

[Guru2Newbie]

There was a catastrophic failure of the dykes back in the early 1900's, IIRC.

What happened? Did the dykes all pull their fingers out of the real dikes at the same time and cause flooding?

In other news...

[SonicSpike]

New Orleans is a cesspool of scum, filth, disease, and rotting corpses....then the hurricane blew in. ;-)

(sorry, I couldn't resist..Lord I apologize, please forgive me and be with the starving pygmies down in New Guniea)

"The Control of Nature" by John McPhee

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>the Mississippii River is held back by huge dikes to prevent it from finding a new route to the sea.

The history of this is fascinating and McPhee's book discusses it at length. The scientists he interviewed told him that the Mississippi should already have changed course into a new channel, one which has a city in its course.

I can't believe you said that!

[SonicSpike]

You said "damn city" ha ha ha!

Escape from LA?

[SonicSpike]

Abandon the city? Don't rebuild? Don't drain it?

Is it just me or does this sound like the movie 'Escape from L.A." ;-(

-1 Cretin

[Gordonjcp]

Learn to spell.

Global Warming?!?! HA!

[SonicSpike]

Hate to break it to ya there, but good luck proving that this was caused by global warming due to some act of man.

If you honestly believe that man helped cause this then you need to go back to 5th grade science and re-examine the scientific method.

I am not saying it isn't possible, but it isn't proven fact either so please don't go touting it like it is.

Re:Global Warming?!?! HA!

[Colonel Panic]

If you honestly believe that man helped cause this then you need to go back to 5th grade science and re-examine the scientific method.

Even without considering Global Warming, humans are implicated in much of this tragedy:
1) humans built a city that is something like 2 to 3 meters below sea level.
2) humans neglected to shore-up the levees even though there have been predictions that this very sort of disaster would happen if it were not done. (too busy spending money in Iraq for whatever reason)
3) Also consider that building levees to hold in the Mississippi river has led to disappearing coastline in that area. In the past when the Mississippi flooded it deposited silt to rebuilt the coastline. That hasn't been allowed to happen for a long time now leading to rapid loss of coastline. Humans definitely implicated in this one and there really is no debate about it.

Now, as for global warming leading to stronger hurricanes: The water temps out there in the Gulf of Mexico are sitting right around 91 degrees. That's pretty toasty. The warmer the water the more energy there is in it and the more energy that can be absorbed by a hurricane, thus stronger hurricanes.

Of course, if you don't believe that global warming is happening in the first place then you are among the shrinking minority of people (and scientists) who hold that view. Of course you can continue to ignore the shrinking glaciers, melting permafrost, rising ocean temps (and levels), stronger hurricanes, etc. if you like.

Re:Global Warming?!?! HA!

[SonicSpike]

Oh I agree that a lot could've been done to prevent some of the specifics of this situation - coastal build up, flood zone development, putting half million people below sea level in a bowl.

In fact I dont think they should allow residences in the New Orleans area from this point further. As our current technology stands, there is NOTHING we can do to prevent New Orleans from flooding in the future. Thus will most insurance companies will probably not reinsure inside the city, it would be foolish to allow residential redevelopment in these parrishes.

This has been an example of people attempting to tweak the natural geological, hydrological, and ecological systems to fit their needs, but failing miserably. So yes in that regard yes I agree people, in part, are guilty of contributing to the increasing scope of this disaster. That is fact.

What is NOT fact is that "global warming" caused this hurricane or that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. Many well-respected scientists would say that global warming doesn't exist at all. It is being debated and tested and are only hypotheses. As a trend temperatures might be rising, but we don't fully understand all of the cyclic changes in climatology.

When people tout "global warming" as fact it shows their ignorance.

Re:What about God? why did you run from His Plan?

[MemoryDragon]

Well the catastrophy has nothing to do with it, if you want a christian view... for all narrow minded bible belters look at a thousand years old prophecy by Hildegard von Bingen, the prophecy basically was like that, that mankind will be punished as long as they fill the rivers ocean and air with poison...

so what we have now is a society exactly doing that and we get back the punishment by heavier environmental desasters than they used to be. This woman thousand years ago she simply wanted to make a point (prophecy or not) that mankind is part of the nature and if you try to kill nature you have to pay the price until you stop doing it.

It is as simple as that so if one of those so called we have every right to pollute our living base Christians would go over their collective asses and stop preaching the end of the world, but instead look at those things, which do not predict anything than you have to live sanely with nature being your lifestock, they probably would behave differently.

A few tits do not make a difference, but pollution and killing off your own base of living for the sake of greed does.

Let's use Alien technology...

[ElectroBot]

We all know that the Ancients collonized the Earth and the Go'uald used humans as slaves all over the Galaxy. Now that the Go'uald are no more, let's finally get the Goverments to admit to the Stargate program, start building Z.P.M.s (zero-point modules) and create city sized shields like they have on Atlantis in the Pegasus galaxy. Those things can survive the pressure of the bottom of the ocean for 10,000 years, gigantic hurricanes, nuclear blasts and sustained fire from multiple enemy star ship's energy weapons. They're pretty invulnerable.

Come on Government leaders! You could prevent almost every future natural disaster!!

P.S. If we start terraforming Mars and colonizing it now we could have a second livable planet within around 100 years (heat-wise not oxygen wise)

Raise the entire city (cf. Chicago)

[pomo monster]

Okay, New Orleans was built at sea level, only to subside under the weight of the built environment. Why, then, didn't anyone take action to raise the city back up before the inevitable occurred? The idea isn't as crazy as it sounds. Chicago did exactly that between 1850 and 1880--raise its street level by up to 14 feet with vaulted roads and sidewalks, and jack up all of its buildings, inch by inch, to match. A building's occupants often weren't even aware it was being raised until they left work in the evening.

So how come wasn't this done in New Orleans? Lack of funds? Engineering problems? Structural instability?

Re:Raise the entire city (cf. Chicago)

[iroll]

Then again, the Chicago effort of 1860 was done on the backs of local men and mules, whereas New Orleans 2005 has the advantage of power machinery and a billion dollars in federal disaster aid.

Re:Raise the entire city (cf. Chicago)

[mattOzan]

Lots of cities did this to avoid seasonal flooding.

Sacramento raised its streets 12 feet between 1864 and 1873 by dredging the Sacramento River and depositing the silt in the streets. The ground floor level became a basement level.

Seattle raised their streets between eight and 36 feet in the 1890's by hydroblasting hills and carrying the dirt down toward the seafront.

I believe New Orleans did actually take similar anti-flooding measures, but they were aimed more at the Mississippi River, which was a much more regular threat. All of their levees are designed to stave off the seasonal river floodwaters. But now they are acting more to prevent the ocean floodwaters from escaping.

Mod UP

[periol]

You're right, of course. I'm truly liberal in my beliefs about taxation - I believe that the wealthier you are, the more you should be taxed. And not just more money, but a higher percentage of your money. And I have no problem with my tax money going to help those who live in states that don't have the same opportunities that are all around me in California.

A more interesting statistic would compare a state's federal tax burden to the state's gdp (or whatever it's called).

Re:Mod UP

[bhiestand]

As much as I disagree with you entirely... and I really mean the idea of wealth redistribution through taxation fucking infuriates me, your request for more interesting statistics is RIGHT on the dot!

From CA Commerce dept website:
- $1.4 Trillion Gross State Product
- Fifth largest economy in the world
- Largest state economy in the U.S.
- State's economy is 13% of GDP

Now, keep in mind that California has many EXTREMELY HIGH COST OF LIVING areas such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Silcion Valley, etc. These areas are responsible for a lot of income, but are also very expensive to live in. The federal tax system doesn't properly adjust to that. Where I grew up, making $100,000 a year meant you MIGHT be able to afford having your own house if you managed your money well. Other places I've lived, $40,000 a year was good money, you could own your own house and car, etc, and of course the federal tax burden on such an income is significantly lower.

So, I personally feel that living in california is a higher tax burden, despite what all the statistics seem to say! But here is a great link with information on that:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/443.html
spreadsheet here
Now THEY say we pay 19.6% of the federal taxes, which ranks us as #10.

But, and here is the big difference, California doesn't get it's share of federal money. In 2002, California paid $58 billion more to Washington than it received. This includes federal salaries in california, grants, etc. California only got 77% of the money back in some way. This is probably mostly attributable to the large base of defense contractors and some major military bases.

$58B might not sound like a lot of money for such a large state, but keep in mind the total state taxes paid every year totals to only $130B. If california received that extra $14B the budget would be balanced again.

I strongly recommend you also read http://www.caltax.org/research/taxburdn.htm which does a great job of explaining why the simple tax burden measurements used above are terribly ineffective.

A typical "Rich" family
To sum it all up, a family of five making $100,000 in Los Angeles (at least the area I lived) would be lucky to be able to purchase a home. Let's estimate about $600,000 for a decent home. With a downpayment of $100,000 (which would take a real long time to save up while renting for $2-3K/month), and a mortgage at the current average of 5.30%, they could come away with a 30-year mortgage at $2776/month. Keep in mind this is paying almost exactly $1,000,000 for a $600,000 home. Now, because their income is so high ($100K, very wealthy) they can expect to be in the upper tax bracket. Not just federally, but state-wise. This is because california has a progressive tax system, where the wealthy people (and $100K is wealthy, isn't it?) pay the majority of the taxes, in terms of a percentage of their income! All said and done, this family would require a skillfull tax advisor to get their annual tax burden down to $40,000. So now they have $60,000 left, of which they would already be paying ~$3000/month for their house (homeowner's insurance, etc.). So that leaves...
$100,00 - $40,000 - $24,000 = $36,000

Now, I'm going to go ahead and PRETEND that they don't have to pay for their own medical insurance. Wealthy people should pay for the medical insurance of those who make under $100,000 a year, not the other way around, RIGHT?

So let's go ahead and say this family needs two vehicles, both costing approx $20,000. So let's do a loan for $40,000, assuming the national average of 6.51% for a 48month loan. This comes out to payments of approx $949/month for both vehi

Re:Mod UP

[Ihlosi]

All said and done, this family would require a skillfull tax advisor to get their annual tax burden down to $40,000.

If that is indeed the case (which I doubt), then the tax system over there is all kinds of screwed up.

Heck, over here in one of those the super-socialist/almost-communist high-tax European countries that I happen to live in, income tax on the equivalent of $100000/yr would be about $25000/yr for said family. They'd end up with only $60000 in take-home pay, still, but they'd all have health insurance, pretty much free (as in beer) universities, etc ....

So if the family in California really pays that much in taxes, where does all the money go ?

Re:Mod UP

[Ihlosi]

Also, how do you get $60,000 take home from $100000 - $25000 ?

Deductions from the salary (no need to worry about those if you're self-employed) that technically aren't taxes - mostly various social insurances (health/accident/unemployment/pension...). The whole socialist/communist stuff.

Some of which could be opted out of even when one is not self-employed (for example health insurance), but for a family of 5, sticking with the public health insurance system is probably the cheaper option. Especially if one or both parents are not young, healthy and otherwise risk-free.

Re:Mod UP

[bhiestand]

States like North Dakota get over twice as much as they are taxed. In fact, all of the welfare states are red states. Where do you think the "war in Iraq" money is SPENT?! It's spent in the states! It's spent on paying civilians or contractors to do jobs for the military. It's spent buying equipment, bombs, fuels, rockets, ammunition, airplanes, etc. This is all (well, maybe not the fuel) purchased in the United States. Under different administrations it shifts to who actually receives this money.

California, housing some of the largest arms developers in the world, should be receiving a lot of that money, but it's not.

The system was designed to work so that yes, each state pays taxes to the federal government, and then the federal government spents the money on whatever it needs to do its job. So some money would be spent on hiring people to maintain federal buildings, some would be spent on paying the military, more would be spent on buying equipment and uniforms for the military, more money would be spent on the salaries of all of the government workers. But if these government workers work in an office in San Francisco, all of that money goes back to the state. Those workers are going to buy groceries, buy a house, pay property taxes, etc. So the states are supposed to get most of the money back so that there is not a drain on their economy. Instead, you have states that are footing the bill to prop up the economies of other states! New York is hit far worse than California in this matter, but both are getting screwed.

Let's recap

[WebHikerOriginal]

To sum up what we've learnt over the past few thousand years :
1)Don't build houses on sand foundations (credit to the Christians for this usefull observation)
2)Don't build houses in hurricane zones (people from Florida have lots of trouble grasping the simple concept of "Hurricane Alley" and why not to live there)
3)Don't build your house below sea level - this might seem obvious at first, and we really ought to have learnt our lesson from the Dutch, but I guess people from New Orleans are REALLY slow learners.

Chicago's solution

[pomo monster]

Actually, Chicago used to be quite prone to flooding from Lake Michigan, which was only a couple feet below street level. The city's roads and streets were impassable every winter because they would freeze over, and impassable every spring because the rain would turn them to mud. Unlike New Orleans, however, Chicago made the decision to raise its street level by up to 14 feet, thus lifting itself out of the muck and greatly reducing the city's susceptibility to flooding. Not only were streets and sidewalks rebuilt on vaulted arches, but entire buildings were also lifted from their foundations by mechanical jacks, even as people within them went about their business as usual. This was done back in the mid-19th century.

Why New Orleans never followed Chicago's lead is something I'd like to know.

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[StikyPad]

Some people deal with tragedy by laughing at it and making jokes. Maybe you don't find that appropriate, but some people don't see crying as an appropriate response either. Regardless, intolerance won't help anything.

Newer Orleans

[jconner]

It was pretty old anyway so it was time to update the name.

Newer Orleans
Orleans Vista
New Orleans 2.0

Re:How about blaming http://ask.slashdotLouisiana?

[AlanKHG]

Missouri is on a major geological fault line, the New Madrid Fault. It produced the strongest earthquake recorded in the continental US.

looting vs. finding

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out these pictures:

"Two residents wade through chest-deep water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store in New Orleans, Louisiana."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050830/ph otos_tc_afp/050830194101_mzffh1jl_photo1

"A young man walks through chest deep flood water after looting a grocery store in New Orleans on Tuesday. (AP/Dave Martin)"

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050830/19 13/w083049ajpg

So when it's a young black man it's called looting, but when it's a white woman it's called 'finding'?

Re:looting vs. finding

[swelke]

In the sort of quiet, never admitted racism that still fills this country; yes. That's what you call it.

Re:looting vs. finding

[goodmanj]

Many papers have recaptioned the photo of the young black man to say he's "carrying groceries" or something less accusatory than "looting".

In both cases, while it's pretty obvious they were looting, there's no proof. Maybe they bought the stuff last week.

My opinion

[ebrandsberg]

As someone that is donating hundreds of dollars under a company donation matching program to the Ced Cross, my opinions:

1. I'm constantly amazed at the number of people that are oblivious to what is going on around them. I've talked with people today that had no idea anything had even happened here in NYC, so how many of those down in New Orleans didn't know that anything was happening before the winds picked up?
2. I'm amazed at how oblivious people are to the potential risks of natural disasters are around them, and know how to deal with them.
3. I'm amazed at how people that should know the risks avoid facing them and when called to evacuate, don't do so.
4. I'm amazed at how a place like New Orleans can only have provisions for a cat 3 hurricane, when they have been nearly hit by worse.
5. I'm amazed at the fact (pending) that the government will allow New Orleans to be rebuilt once they get the water under control.

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[shutdown -p now]

Oh btw A big fuck you to the people with mod points today.

I do have mod points, and won't touch this article with a six-feet pole. But thank you for the kind words anyway.

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[ki4iib]

Why not wait to see the full impact of this disaster before you reflexively respond with sarcasm and wit? Please.

Mostly because the all-night bars in New Orleans were open, and had signs to the effect of: "We won't die sober!!!". The city itself is a dark, grim humour, and...yeah, something insightful here. There's plenty of time in the day for reverence. Here, we come to laugh. (c'mon, it's Slashdot. Nothing is reverent or serious.)

Better ask the Germans?

[jesterpilot]

The Dutch (i am one) have been best in dyke building and flood control for centuries. The problem is, we are too good in it. Like in Louisiana, with the pumping of the water, we also suck the land down.

The major mistake of the Dutch was the reclamation of land below the average sealevel. Because we became very good at pumping, we dropped the old technique of reclaiming land by accelerated sinking of silt http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landgewinnung. Instead we made a ring-dyke and pumped the water away. With the sea rising and the land sinking, it's getting harder and harder to keep those places dry, and the dangers of a flood are increasing.

The Germans on the coast of Ostfriesland and Schleswig-Holstein didn't drop the old way of land reclamation; even the polders of the 20th century are made by accelerated sinking of silt. Almost all of them are kept dry by "Sielen", nothing but big one-way valves in the dyke. They open at low tide, the water in the polder flows away and when the tide rises, it closes the valves again. To the contrary, almost all Dutch polders need pumps.

In former centuries, the Germans often hired Dutch engineers for their dykes. But nowadays, i think the German are ahead of us, just because they never became impatient and stuck with accelerated sinking of silt.

In Nordfriesland, the westcoast of Schleswig-Holstein, you can find so called "Halligen" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallig. These are small islands without a dyke or dunes. Houses are built on terps. When a stormflood hits the island, it is completely flooded except for the terps with the houses.

Those floods do some damage to the island, but also bring on new silt. These islands are in a dynamic equilibrium of damage from floods and (accelerated) sinking of silt. It was that way because the people couldn't afford a dyke, nowadays it's because of landscape conservation (you should see it, it's really beautiful!) but in the future it might prove to be the way to go for sustainable preservation of the lowlands.

Re:Better ask the Germans?

[mcvos]

Actually, some of the Dutch polders are getting too dry because of all the pumping. Ground water levels drop, which is bad for agriculture, and land sinks faster because of this. Therefore people are considering leaving the lowest polders a bit wetter, so they won't suck all the water out of the surrounding land.

Venezuela

[Artemis3]

What williamyf conveniently ignored, was the fact that Chavez, in 1999 actually accepted USA aid, machinery and engineers; but USA also insisted in deploying US Marines, something unacceptable for us.

Our offer to the United States is sincere. I don't know what George W. Bush will do, or not, but its not an offer to the USA central government, its an offer for the people, the organizations helping people, local governments, religious groups, etc.

This type of aid has been offered to the countries in the Caribbean who had been suffering the past hurricanes. We have helped with supplies and rebuilding in Jamaica, Cuba, Grenada, Haiti, etc. We also sent people to Sri Lanka and India after the tsunami, along with monetary donations.

Let me return you the favor: if you ever come to Venezuela, look me up and i would gladly show you around, so you can see the truth by yourself.

Let me clarify that we in Venezuela have no problem with the people of the United States. What we have issues with, is with the current administration, because they have actively worked against our country. It is not a personal matter either, if Bush stopped attempting to force his vision of what a country should be, and started respecting our sovereignty, i'm sure normal relationships with the administration would be restored. As it is right now, they don't even accept talking with our ambassador in Washington D.C., despite permanent attempts and support from Democrats and Republicans in the US congress.

If you are interested in knowing more about Venezuela, let me suggest these links:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/
http://www.vheadline.com/

Re:Venezuela

[xeno-cat]

"What we have issues with, is with the current administration, because they have actively worked against our country."

When has a US administration ever worked in your countries interest, or indeed any South American countries interest? As a North American, I'd really ike to know if you feel that it has ever happend. All I have read regarding North/South relations has been of violence and exploitation.

I'm very excited and interested in the political directions being forged by, paritcularly, Brazil and Venezuela and their willingness to stand up to the United States. Thank you for the links in your post, I will read them often. If you have any other links or books you could recomend I would be greatful. I'm mostly interested in current political thinking regarding the structuring of society, what forms of nationalism are developing and if there is any talk about either South American Unification or joining the European Union.

Kind Regards

Re:Venezuela

[williamyf]

Pana (for the english speakers, this means pal): I will not try to convert this into a discussion. I did not "conveniently ignored" I just ignored, and I will check. I am a technical minded guy, not a politician, and I am very pragmatic, may I add. If the US Govt wanted to send in marines, whatever the excuse ("they are experts in demolition and rebuilding" for instance), let them do it, get the aid, and latter on, get the marines out.

I think that due to the presence of the marines, and whatnot, all the aid was rejected in the end. Anyway, lets take a walk through Vargas now, and see how it is.

Suficiente por ahora, dejemoslo hasta aqui, mi pana!

Suerte a todos y feliz dia!

Re:Venezuela

[Artemis3]

Well i'm not saying they have to work in our interest, but at least respect us and maintain normal diplomatic relationships, not instigating coups, or openly funding radical non democratic groups.

As an US citizen, you would be very suprised at the amount of money the US administration spends in illegal activities in Venezuela.

In the links i provided you can read some of the details.

Regional integration is one of the long term goals, and one of the main foreign policies for Venezuela. It is a type of integration that goes beyond trade agreements, in fact it gives priority to social, political and cultural aspects as well.

Its not exactly that we are standing up to the states, its more like the US administration wants their rules imposed on us, without us having any chance to discuss anything. They pretend we go to Washington d.c. and sign without reading whatever they wish. Any objection, is good enough for Bush to declare us part of the "axis of evil, communists, etc".

For example, they would love to see PDVSA, the state oil company, sold to private interests. Well who do you think PDVSA is competing with in the international market? Exactly, the multinational oil companies, which the Bush administration is closely related with. Im sure they would love to buy it all, but our current constitution, discussed and approved by the majority of the people in the referendum of 1999, forbids this.

Here are some more links:
http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/intro.htm
http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/v enezuela/
http://www.veninfo.org/
http://www.embavenez-us.org/
http://www.vicuk.org/

Richard Stallman has many comments about Venezuela (he has been here many times) http://www.stallman.org/
In fact, he is calling to "Protest Bush by buying gas from Citgo." by citing an article made by Jeff Cohen: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0516-25.htm

Citgo belongs to PDVSA, which means us:
http://www.citgo.com/

We ship daily 1500000 barrels of oil to the United States. of these, 660000 go to Citgo.

Here are some interesting oil facts:

- An oil tanker from Venezuela takes from 4 to 5 days to reach the south coast in USA. The same oil tanker coming from the middle east, takes about 40 days.
- Venezuelan oil is heavier than average (requires more refining), and it has a lower international price (about 10US$ less per barrel).
- Because its not so profitable and enviromentally friendly, there have been no new refineries built in the United States in the past 25 years.
- Refining capacity in the States has peaked at 100% capacity for many years already, getting more oil to the market won't lower prices anymore, and the global demand of oil has already reached maximun production ("Peak Oil" levels).
- Citgo owns 8 of those not so profitable refineries...
- USA with 7% population of the world consumes 27% of total oil production. Please guys, support energy efficiency usage and alternative methods.
- China and India are demanding more and more fuel, we have already established good relationships with them.

A couple of documentaries i recommend you to watch:

http://endofsuburbia.com/
http://www.chavezthefilm.com/

Re:Venezuela

[xeno-cat]

"It is a type of integration that goes beyond trade agreements, in fact it gives priority to social, political and cultural aspects as well."

I have felt for a long time that if Democractic principals are going to have any future on the American continent that it was going to be South America that ultimatly showed the way. The USA is so over run by the worlds elite that true change seems impossible.

As for the nations of South America, I hope that the progressive parties can find stability amidst the long standing policies the USA has had to distabalize and promote corruption. I can't help but think that a strong solidarity between South American countries would be helpful.

The rhetoric of the current political parties really gives me hope that government can really be concerned with the welfare of it's populace. My Wife and me live in the state of Maine and are involved in a State wide initiative called the Creative Economy. It is an attempt to rewrite some of the economic indicators that are used to allocate State monies to projects that promote local economic development. We have been speculating that it would be amazing to have someone from Brazil, we were thinking Gilberto Gil, to come and school the State on how to promote local economic development (the creative economy is art and technology focused). It would also help people understand the imporatiance of the political acivity that is currently trying to succeed in South America and why we, as USians, should support it (starting with extraditing Pat Robertson to your legal system).

Thank you for the thorough response to my request for more information. I'll be sorting through it for some time to come.

Kind Regards

Re:Venezuela

[Confuzzled]

I am also Venezuelan. Those sites that Artemis3 links to are highly biased. The offer from Chavez is nothing more than political buffoonery. Chavez has consistenly played the "protector of the people" card, and this is just more of that.

I'm amazed that someone that actually posts on slashdot (which means he's in a very select few considering the situation of the country), can be part of this machinery.

Please don't "liberate" us. But do understand that Chavez is a miserable liar, who has ties to Fidel Castro and has been properly coached by the former.

Sure, Chavez has done what no other president has done, actually pretend to care for the poorest, offering several programs. However these programs never work as well as he professes on his TV shows (yes he has a TV show called "hello president").

While he has repeatedly posed himself as the protector of the disadvantaged, Chavez has spent ridiculous amounts of money on himself, his trips around the world, personal cheffs, clothes, etc. You can only imagine how the president of one of the richest oil producing countries in the world lives. For those of you who don't know, all oil in the country belongs to the government (supposedly for the people).

Accountability

[Anonymous Coward]

I am stupified at the lackluster, apathetic, laconic, and ineloquent issuances of the man who may soon become the first mayor of a lake in history.

The nearly perfect vacuum where forceful, positive, and competent leadership in this time of ultimate crisis is direly needed is simply beyond expression--without the use of expletives too extreme to spell.

With all the dire warnings of just precisely such a catastrophic event, where the hell was realistic preparation? When even complete laymen were practically screaming in hurricane-related forums for New Orleans to be evacuated, when every computer model had New Orleans dead center in the crosshairs of a Cat 5 hurricane ambling across the Gulf, unwaveringly on course, where was the ordered timely evacuation?

How could there not be reserved for instant action all the necessary resources to effectively deal with the one thing that absolutely could not be permitted to go unhandled in any remotely similar situation: a levee break? And now he gets on television and complains that "the helicopter didn't show up"? His "reason": Oh, he says "too many chiefs calling the shots." Here's a news bulletin, Mayor Neptune: you're the chief who should have called the shots long, long, long before the disaster was flooding over your people.

Since his evacuation order came so late in the game, he then had to lead thousands of people into a vulnerable giant sardine can, like the Pied Piper--only to abandon them and go stay comfortably at the Hyatt.

And what does Senator Vitter say about Mayor Neptune Nagin? "Mayor Nagin's calm and control and command of the facts showed me that we have one of the best leaders in the country right here." And Senator Vitter's complete oblivion to all facts shows me that we have one of the biggest idiots in the country occupying a Senate seat. But as Mark Twain said: "I repeat myself."

Where is any effective preparation at all for this unprecedented, though repeatedly predicted, catastrophe? This is no Pompeii, where the idiocy was limited to building in the shadow of a volcano; this is a disaster for which actual effective preparedness could have produced a vastly different outcome. In fact, though later information may mitigate this, the prevailing information is that the levee break was pouring countless gallons of water into the bowl of New Orleans before Mayor Neptune Nagin even woke up to the fact. How's that for "control and command of the facts," Senator Vitter? I don't know where Mayor Neptune had his finger, but it certainly wasn't in the dike.

In any crisis, it's easy, and often reactionary, to point fingers of blame. Sometimes it's simply a vent of frustration and helplessness, something no doubt all of us feel in greater or lesser degrees. But there also is accountability for trusts placed in public officials. When they fail, their failures are real. When their failures result in untold mayhem and destruction to property and lives, they are accountable. This man has failed miserably to prepare. And, in the face of the consequences of his own failed preparation, he has not only failed to effectively lead, inspire, and devise workable solutions, he has taken to whining publically about "too many chiefs."

No, Mayor Neptune, the problem is one too few chiefs. The rest are having to take up your slack.

Re:Accountability

[psykocrime]

When even complete laymen were practically screaming in hurricane-related forums for New Orleans to be evacuated, when every computer model had New Orleans dead center in the crosshairs of a Cat 5 hurricane ambling across the Gulf, unwaveringly on course, where was the ordered timely evacuation?

Anybody who knew the situation, and waited for the Mayor to order an evacuation before evacuating, has themselves to blame if they didn't get out in time. Whatever happened to "personal responsibility?"

I don't know about you, but I'm capable of watching CNN and visiting www.weather.com, and deciding for myself if it's time to "get out" and I don't need any government official to tell me one way or the other. And I'm nothing special, so there's no good reason why most everybody else can't do the same thing.

Sometimes it's simply a vent of frustration and helplessness, something no doubt all of us feel in greater or lesser degrees. But there also is accountability for trusts placed in public officials. When they fail, their failures are real. When their failures result in untold mayhem and destruction to property and lives, they are accountable.

This is exactly why it's stupid to place any significant trust in "elected officials," especially when it goes to the point of abdicating responsibility for one's own health & safety.

CO2, Kyoto, climate change

[Mugros]

I wonder if Mr Bush will now start thinking if global warming is still not a problem. Maybe at least the citizens of New Orleans or the other affected regions will now begin to think if 5.0-V8-engines with a need of 15litre/100km are the future or even a good choice for the present.

I think mother earth just begins to show us how she likes to be changed by humans.

Re:CO2, Kyoto, climate change

[pclminion]

I think mother earth just begins to show us how she likes to be changed by humans.

Drop the "Mother Earth" bullshit. What's happening is that a system is reacting to forcing. If you push a swing at the right frequency, hard enough, you can cause your two year old to go flying off the seat. That doesn't mean the swing "doesn't like being pushed that hard."

International help

[Kamamura]

Well, I heard that some nations are willing to return some of the bombs US army threw on their territory.

Vietnam is willing to donate some napalm canisters and Japan sends a miniature capsule with a few nuclei of very rare and strongly radioactive substance.

Chile is ready to suply vast lenghts of rusty prison chains to pull things out of water.

More importantly, all these ethusiastic supporters will send plenty of coffins!

Re:International help

[ifwm]

It's americans like you that are hated around the world

Calling Captain Obvious, come in please.

[Qbertino]

... and what can be done to prevent and/or lessen such disasters in the future?

Well, let's start with number one:

Have that Airhead that is in charge over there at your place finally sign the Kyoto protocol and reduce greenhouse reason nummero uno, which is CO2. I'd like to add that the US has the highest per capita output of CO2. Y'know, global warming, change of climate, stronger storms and all that ... rings a bell?

On goes it with

Don't build below sea level. Maybe? No?

Then:
Don't build with egg-carton but with real bricks.

I could go on, but those are the most pressing.

Re:Calling Captain Obvious, come in please.

[halo8]

egg-carton?

i dont get that?
please explain
\I'm Canadian, and well aware of shotty american construction

Re:Calling Captain Obvious, come in please.

[ytm]

actually volcanic activity is the cause. A volcanic eruption will release 60,000 times as much co2 into the atmosphere in the space of said eruption as a major city releases in a year.

Yes, blame volcanoes. Blame dwarves, blame Canadians, blame communists. Blame anyone but yourself.

Re:Calling Captain Obvious, come in please.

[swelke]

Attention: your rant has been interrupted by a completely different rant on another topic.

HEY! He's not our airhead! We voted against him all the way back in 2000, remember? He's the Supreme Court's airhead.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled rant.

Re:Calling Captain Obvious, come in please.

[Thud457]

Sticks. Sticks! That's what I did wrong!

My idiot brother is squandering a pretty penny on bricks, the fool!

Re:Why are all the looters black?

[Peregr1n]

Indeed... have you seen this?
(Summary: News clipping showing a black man pulling food through the water, captioned 'A young man wades through chest deep flood water after looting a grocery store...'; and another clipping showing two white people pulling food through the water, captioned 'Two residents wade through chest deep flood water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store...')

Welcome to the United States

[Lectrik]

Where public safety is contracted out to the lowest bidder.

Perhaps when coastal population centers occur blow sea level, safety measures should be over-engineered?

I'd hope that Underwatertown, Florida with an average hight of 20 feet below sea-level and a population over 500,000 located on the beach with a large tourism industry, would look at the worst case scenario and then be
prepared for something twice as bad

I'd want levees that could handle 50 feet of storm surge and 220 knot sustained winds without breaking a sweat.
I'd want independantly powered (or at least secure underground lines) forced drainage.
I'd want a magical pony that would drink all the water in the case that one of the levees broke.
I'd also not put a prison in a place where the inmates would be evacuated and held on an on-ramp

Just vaporize the ocean...

[theufo]

...and the water will flow out automagically. Puts those old nukes to good use.

Re:Is this a rhetorical question?

[fluffy666]

I guess it was human activity that caused Global Warming and ended the last ice age 10,000 years ago.

No, that's just stupid.

Climate Change is cyclical.

That's just meaningless (unless you want to tell me what these cycles are, of course).

This is probably just another symptom of an overdue, rapidly approaching ice age.

IF you kept up with climate science, THEN you would know that the next ice age is not due for 8-15,000 years. Surprising you dont, seen as you know all about climate cycles. Ironically, the only thing you don't seem to know is the Carribean/Hurricane cycle with a 40-50 year peridocity, which is a natural cycle and has a lot more to do with Katrina than global warming. GW will make hurricanes more intense, but only over the next 50-100 years, not right now.

Re:My .Great Wall

[CmdrGravy]

And it seems to have the benefit of working properly too.

Re:Sinking :Look at this from popularmechanics'01

[dreamchaser]

They had ample warning this time, it's just that many chose to ignore it and stay. The loss of lives is most likely going to be in the hundreds if not thousands by the time this is all played out.

A new warning system would have changed nothing about this current event.

Double jackass back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the GP point. GWB decided to start a war. That has to be paid for (otherwise you are unamerican and against "our brave boys" - bad mojo). Therefore congress has to cut the budget because of a decision they could not stop. A decision that shrub made.

Re:Double jackass back at ya

[glesga_kiss]

GWB decided to start a war.

Our market research indicates that "war" has a negative connotation associated with it. We have thus implemented a rebranding process aimed at reviving interest in the 18-30 democraphic. Telephone research has shown that the images of "liberatation", "democracy" and "freedom" are far more desirable to our target market therefore we have implemented a shift towards this style of presentation in our marketing materials. Our two most recent campaigns have proven to be extremely successful, gaining widespread public support prior to their initiation. These campaigns have also benefited from the study we comissioned regarding the "fear" brand four years ago. The marketing department recommends that this approach is continued for the next three seasons as it is netting large gains for our investors.

The fucked up thing is...the above probably isn't all that far from the truth...

Man is he SOL or a 'crap lightening rod' or what?

[crovira]

Lets review.

Before Bush: Internet boom, high-tech in high gear, I loved my life.

Since: World Trade Center turned to a pile of smoking rubble by person who just hates US, Iraq war got by lying, won itself but peace lost, several thousand dead as a result, oil prices go to Near European price levels, oil reserves depleted, then economy struck by the loss of a major city.

Somebody tell me who let George in?

what can be done?

[Anonymous Coward]

what can be done to prevent and/or lessen such disasters in the future?

Listen to the Earth and respect it?

Stop spewing climate changing gasses into the atmosphere?

I hope not. Its not just flooded, its drowned.

[crovira]

The few pieces that are poking out of the wet sewage that is left of where it stood are going to be like rotted teeth long before any appreciable amount of rebuilding can happen.

I'd dedicate the ruins to hubris and let ecotourists have their way in there, in about 50 years.

Modded Funny? It's not a joke.

[Generalisimo Zang]

Maybe the parent poster is wise-cracking, but what he's he's saying is the logical next step in this little drama.

What? You think that the 24/7 coverage on Fox News about how the eviiil liberals are "destroying Amerikuh" isn't having an affect on the intented audience?

You think the newscasters chuckling about "college frat pranks" when speaking dismissively about ongoing torture and murder in Iraqi prisons isn't setting the tone for what is to come?

You think that fining Janet Jackson for showing a boob, while giving Pat Robertson a free pass while he calls for the assasination of a foreign head of state (a felony), isn't setting the tone for what is to come?

It's no joke.

Re:Modded Funny? It's not a joke.

[lgw]

No worries for you Generalisimo, just remember to leave your tinfoil hat at home, and the Orbital Mind Control Lasers will ensure that you are a happy, well-adjusted citizen, with no fear of the camps. Oh, and make sure to carry your GPS-enabled cell-phone until we can get enough RFIDs in place, or the aim might be off!

hmmmm

[borta_galen]

if only new orleans had more dykes!

Tech News?

[szaz]

Is this tech news?
I don't think so. Besides, giving a forum to most of the people that have commented on here doesn't seem like a good idea! I mean... Aid = Communist!! What planet are you on? Communism = a bad word? Eh? Does the average American know what communism is? Are they able to distiguish between the principles of communism, the principles of socialism and the practice of either?
And as for all the bullshit US politics - it has sod all to do with politics left or right (not that there is a significant distinction between the two in US politics right now).
It seems like some of the population of the US is drifting further and further away from sense! Come on.... leave politics out of

Adam Smith talked about a "pure free market"....

[Generalisimo Zang]

Adam Smith spoke about what the world would is like, when people ignore the common weal in order to exclusively persue short-term personal gain:

"Life, in a state of nature, is nasty, brutish, and short."

It's funny how many people who identify themselves as "Capitalists", would be completely appaled at the statements he made, if they actually bothered to read Adam Smith's books.

Re:Hmm

[CmdrGravy]

Well our prayers certainly aren't with them. Like most things religious our prayers are very selective.

MOD PARENT INFORMATIVE

[Fastball]

Very nice post. Man, to be a real estate agent in Baton Rouge in 6-12 months time...

So the US is going to collapse.

[crovira]

Don't worry it won't. Now the drilling and refineries can really proceed. No more environmentalists and NIMBY advocates.

Its going to become a waste land built on top of a swap (and a few graves) and nobody'll complain. It'll be like Alaska would have been except for the environmentalists.

Suicidal?

[Kaylo]

Why is it that people insist on building, rebuilding, and rebuilding again in areas where they are almost certain to get knocked down after a sufficiently long (yet still human-scale) length of time? Let's build on this unstable clay hillside. Sure, people who've built here before have repeatedly died due to mudslides, but... Let's build in this hurricane corridor. Sure, the only reason there is space now is that the previous houses got tossed into some nearby ocean, but... Darn, our city got shaken to pieces in an earthquake. Let's invest in rebuilding everything in the exact same region. Yeah, there'll be another quake, and worse, but... Aw heck, this river system flooded again. Well, hundredth time's the charm, right? Let's build back in the floodplain. Sure, it might make sense not to do the same thing again, but... What is this, a mass response to global overpopulation? "Hey, if we keep trying to live in places like this, eventually the population may go down!" And if so, why do folks in these regions keep producing brand-new children at the same time?

Re:Suicidal?

[gatkinso]

Face it: 1) human beings are stupid, 2) primitive, and 3) aggressive.

1) We (re)build and live in known disaster zones

2) We get virually all of our energy from expanding hot gasses and mechanically induced electrical current

3) Hitler, Saddam, George....

The Aliens must be disgusted with Earthlings! ;-)

In Amerika, you can blow someone away

[crovira]

as long as you keep your top on.

Call to evacuate (Sun. morning) TOO LATE

[Fastball]

Smart people knew to get out sooner and did. Personally, I believe the mayor's call to evacuate the city of New Orleans on Sunday morning was too late. Saturday afternoon or evening at the latest would have given folks an extra day or half-day to get moving.

What can be done?

[Captain_Chaos]

... what can be done to prevent and/or lessen such disasters in the future?

The US ratifying the Kyoto protocol would be a good start. Hopefully this disaster will provide incentive (as if that should be needed) for the US to finally join the rest of the world in really trying to combat this problem.

mod parent up

[domipheus]

The main thing here has to be point 2.a, don't build your houses of wood. Out of every country I have been in, the US seems to have the biggest proportion of wood-builds.

The north of scotland regularly gets winds of 120mph (ok, it aint 160-200 but its still alot, and it is still only considered a gale here), but you will be hard pressed to find a building made of wood. While yes, people get hurt sometimes, it is mostly because of falling debris (trees, etc).

As for the water, it seems flooding is getting more and more common around the globe. Over in the uk insurance is skyrocketing for areas near to rivers beacuse of the increased risk. I'm sure I heard there was a website with 'danger areas' for potential homebuyers to avoid because of the huge insurance costs.

Superdome not build on bedrock foundation

[Fastball]

I'm too lazy to search, but I believe the Superdome was built such that it's weight was spread across a wide enough stretch of land to distribute its load and prevent it from sinking. At least from sinking all at once. In fact, it and the city of New Orleans are built on timber piles. Wow.

A robot bigger than the Eifel Tower

[mcvos]

there's a truly gigantic floating set of metal arms, which are rotated into place and then sunk, to protect the mouth of the Rotterdam waterway.

Each of those arms is as big as the Eiffel Tower. And since the arms are robotic, we have a robot that's bigger that the Eiffel Tower.

mcv.

Levity

[Fastball]

Helps cope with difficulties.

Flash floods

[Fastball]

Attended a friend's wedding in New Orleans about five years ago. The night before the wedding, we went out on the town. A small thundershower popped up and dumped a fair bit of rain on us. It wasn't fifteen minutes from the time the rain fell before the water was up to our calves. Didn't rain much longer than twenty or thirty minutes either. Can't imagine what it is like with hurricanes bearing down.

It's not the *height* of the surge...

[caveat]

You said it yourself - the North Sea doesn't have 140+ mph sustained winds for 8-12 hours. The sheer power of the waves in weather like that means the surge doesn't have to be higher than the dike/levee to break through; instead, the ocean just takes the brute-force approach and pounds it to pieces.

Re:Let's recap this, again (no flame inteded)

[elal1862]

To sum up what you cheap "penny wise, pound foolish" (as the Brits state so nicely) folks still need to learn:
1) You can build houses on sand foundations. Heck, sand is considered "firm" and "stable" over here. We're building 150m (492ft) high-rises on a peat bog. (Granted, all the extra engineering will cost ya)
2) Your love for "cardboard 'n matchstick" houses are a bit misplaced in some areas. Build somthing more "climate proof" instead! (And while you're at it, upgrade the utilities to that same weatherproof level) (Granted, it will cost ya)
3) There's not much wrong with livin' below sea level, except that there's absolutely no room for complacency. That's the real Dutch lesson to be learned: As soon as complacency creeps in, you don't need to ask "whether", but rather ask "when" the flood comes! (Granted, being vigilant will cost ya)

So why are there still people willingly living in 'risky' areas? Well, maybe, just maybe there are just too many strategic and economic advantages to certain locations... And that you'll lose them, if you move them... Or something...
It all boils down to paying for all "local disadvantages" up front or paying the ultimate price afterwards.

Just my (heavily biased) EUR 0.02 (typing this from a steel and concrete monolith, built on a 18m (59ft) deep foundation @ 6.4m (21ft) below sea level)

A few points on location...

[Zitchas]

First of all, being a coastal city isn't really the safest situation in the tropics, especially storm-rich areas such as theirs. I've lived in the tropics long enough to have figured out that much. Either you take extra precautions, or you live with the risk. Everything else pretty much stems from that. Being below sea-level in an area that is going to get storm surges is just plain silly. Even if you invest in the biggest and best dykes in the world, there is going to come a time when a) the biggest and worst storm *still* manages to push the waves over it, or b) you get flooded from the inside by torrential rains that have nowhere to go. And aren't going to go anywhere untill they evaporate or are removed forcibly, or c) you get flooded by rivers or miscelaneous other sources. After all that, they make matters worse by building on a flood plain. A silt flood plain, even. Nature's built her world to take these sorts of things, and in the watery world that frequently involves having large plains ecosystems that are designed to be flooded on a regular basis. Removing these, as well as straightening and cleaning out rivers results in much higher and faster water flows downstream, and increases the likelyhood of major flooding elsewhere. And the fact that, somehow or another, flood plains managed to flood now and then despite all of our efforts, no getting around that. Like it happened to us up here, precautions might make it less frequent, but that also usually means that when flooding does happen, it tends to end up being worst-case scenarios. Lastly, building on silt is just asking for trouble. Silt settles, silt is most deffinitly going to leak, and in the odd chance of an earthquake, silt tends to turn into quicksand and/or soup. Oh, and someone sugested simply building overtop in order to keep everything above sea level, which was promptly denigrated. Isn't there another major city that did that? Somewhere in the Mexico/South America areas, although I forget exactly which one. And as far as that goes, there's always venice. Let the ocean in, (but keep the dykes as breakwaters to keep the waves out) and build all the buildings taller to accomodate having the lower levels flooded. Use the negative as a positive atraction. Replace everyone's cars with boats. You can have just as many traffic jams and speed just as much with boats as with cars, although you tend to have fewer fires when you get into accidents.

Establish a Stripper's Relief Fund

[Fastball]

Paypal a $1 bill to the nearest garter. Think of the strippers!

Re:What can be done about it?

[huge colin]

Yep, because terrorists hate our freedom.

Whether or not it's part of the reason for terrorist attacks on the US, it's pretty absurd to mock the idea that fundamentalist Islamic terrorists are jealous of western prosperity. How would you feel if you "knew" that you were chosen by god, and yet you were forced to hide in mountain caves while your enemies had everything they wanted? They're definitely angrily jealous.

Answer:

[Overzeetop]

Don't bother trying to fix it. You're fighting a losing battle. Same goes with the Atlantic coast beaches.

I have two words for you: PRIVATE FUNDING.

You want to live below sea level in a hurricane zone? Fine by me, but don't ask me to bail you out. Want to build a million dollar house at the beach? Fine, but don't ask me to spend billions of dollars to rebuild the beach for you.

It all goes back to foolish people doing foolish things. If it were me, I'd deny insurance claims to anyone wanting to rebuild, and I'd require that anyone rebuilding MUST place their first floor above sea level on a flood-resistant foudnation which can withstand 145mph winds.

What? That sounds too extreme? Guess what, dumbshit, THAT'S THE THE REQUIREMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL (i.e. US) BUILDING CODE!* They rebuild all these historic strucutres without these requirements because they've been "grandfathered". They shouldn't be rebuilt.

*I happen to be a strucutral engineer, and have the building code next to me. I design flood foundations. I design for hurricane winds. I happen to know that most builders and building officials outside of Florida wouldn't know proper high-wind construction if it fell on them. And as for the 145mph winds...well, grab a copy of ASCE 7-02 "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures". Page 37. The 140MPH contour happens to pass right over Lake Ponchitrain. The next contour, which covers the entire coastal area is 150MPH. In fact, the entire coast from Houma, LA through MS and AL all the way to the FL border is a 150MPH zone. If all the buildings were up to code, there wouldn't have been anything but extremely isolated structural damage. But you don't listen. So you die.

I'd like my 7mil in cash, if you wouldn't mind.

Re:Answer:

[dubious9]

There are multiple things wrong about your argument.

First-off: Straw-man argument buddy. Where did I say that they should rebuild? I mearly said that a study of the effect of what a direct hit hurricane would likely yeild more useful information than, "would flood the city, the pumps would fail, and you'd have the world's biggest swimming pool with underwater bars".

Second off, the study didn't cost 71 million dollars, that was the amount the budget was cut.

Thirdly, the If-you-want-to-build-"Fine, but don't ask me to spend billions of dollars to rebuild the beach for you" argument is naive. New Orleans produces a lot of tax revenue. I'd bet (without statistics of course) that New Orleans has generated far more tax revenue since the last bad hurricane then will be needed to be given back to rebuild. Not to mention the benefit to the economy during that time. Or the costs need to relocate.

I agree that in areas where the tax-income to disaster cost is grossly disproportionate, then simply don't provide funding anymore. Like your beach house example. But to forsake New Orleans now just because it is in a high risk zone is quite a simplistic and ignorant reactionary stance.

In other words... still no 7 mil for you.

Re:Answer:

[pclminion]

If all the buildings were up to code, there wouldn't have been anything but extremely isolated structural damage. But you don't listen. So you die.

Nice, you're saying that the people struck by disaster should be allowed to die? I didn't realize we were a nation of barbarians. Thanks for pointing that out.

Re:Answer:

[Overzeetop]

Sorry, that was a bit harsh. I should have said:

"But you don't listen. You don't require your building departments to hire qualified professionals to monitor contractors. You don't make them enforce inspection provisions in the code. You don't make them require complete plans for construction. How do you allow this? By requiring that the cost of construction be more important than the safety fo the building. You think you'll be happier in a 4000SF ticky-tacky box than a properly designed 1800SF gem. You let your legislators enact statues of repose (how long you can sue for defects) which are far less than the design life of the building (50 years, btw). So you put you and your families in harm way, intentionally, through inaction and the need to have a bigger, more extravagant home than you can afford to build properly. And even if you claim you know no better, and are ignorant of the law and common sense, you listen to news reports for a couple of days of a major hurricane coming, huge winds, terrible rain, storm surge far in excess of levys, and you sit in your freaking house and wait until its too late to go to higher ground. So you die.

Is that better?

I do have some sympathy for the victims. It's a horrible tragedy. Looks like it very well may be worse (no, certainly IS worse) than the damage inflicted by the suicide hijackers on 9-11-01. I have a family, too, and would be devastated if I lost any of them. And I'd be pissed at them, as well, if they sat in their house for two days watching a 175MPH hurricane slowly make its way towards them, and didn't do anything. Tsunamis, Earthquakes, Tornadoes...they all happen vary quickly. Hurricanes take a while to get to you. That's why I live on the east coast - of all the natrual disasters, hurricanes are fairly predictable. I'm okay with that predictability - I have time to decide whether to run for my life. If I choose not to...well, its my own damned fault if I goes toes up.

(guess I'm not really redeeming myself here. oh, well, its been a long day)

Re:Answer:

[robbak]

I Live in North Queensland, have lived through a high force 3 cyclone 20 years ago, and have a father who is a carpenter. It really suprises me when I see buildings in more southern climes loose their entire roof, with battens still attatched. Such simple things as a batten strap, which ties the battens to the rafters, seem to be unknown. Up here, they're de_regieur. However, for places like New Orleans, May I suggest a simple, 1 line building code? 1.a. Don't.

Unsurprising...

[lysium]

I personally will take Capitalism and Freedom over Socialism any day. At least with Capitalism I can have a chance to provide for myself if I have the skills and dedication.

The Libertarian is typically one who is young enough to believe that he will be rich one day; young enough to want to be rich one day, to the detriment of those around him.

Re:Unsurprising...

[Cro Magnon]

And the Socialist realizes he is a loser who will only survive if the government steals money from someone else to give to him.

Re:Leave it alone

[macshome]

Dude. Hurricanes. Not network cable. No need to uppercase CAT.

Maybe he typed it on his MAC.

Argument done by someone who can't win

[crovira]

communism on one hand (or out on side of his mouth) and islamic militancy on the other hand (or out the other side of his mouth.)

An argument made by someone who believes that anybody who listens to him is too stupid to know what the words mean.

Graves

[AviLazar]

Graves have always been a problem for New Orleans area. They have always said that floods, and the fact that properties are built over swamp land, will cause these graves to uproot. Well if there was ever a flood to prove that theory it's now. I feel bad for those who are uninsured..and I am sure there are a lot of people in those areas.

Stilts!

[havoc]

One word: Stilts. If you build in a flood plane below sea level, elevate your structure. It doesn't add that much cost to the overall expense of a structure and can reduce the amount of damage due to a flood substantially. It seems that housing in America has become too uniform across the country, tending to lean towards the cheapest structures possible with no concern to enviornment and energy costs.

Why?

[St. Arbirix]

Why is anyone even planning to go back? Doesn't living there now seem to smack of idiocy?

It's like owning a mobile home in Florida or building a multi-million dollar home on the Outer Banks of North Carolina.

Easy; Next Time....

[Hasai]

....Don't build a city atop a sinking heap of river silt.

:P

Neo Orleans

[maddh]

Build a floating megastructure on Lake Pontchartrain.
I've already created concept designs Neo Orleans

Re:Reduce energy consumption in US

[gatkinso]

Hurricanes have been occuring well before man started bleching out CO2.

Perhaps they are getting worse due to global woarming, perhaps not. My point is that this could have happened regardless of warming trends.

It's time to do the right thing - bury it

[Electric Eye]

New Orleans was built by morons who thought they could outwit Mother Nature. The city's time finally came due. Why should my tax dollars, and the tax dollars of every citizen in this country, go towards rebuilding a city that shouldn't have been built? It's going to literally take trillions (not billions) of dollars to rebuild the city. And what happens when another major hurricane strikes? We do this all over again?? We've already done enough damage by building flood levies along the Miss. River and choked off VALUABLE wetlands that not only could have lessened the damage of this hurricane but also keep the Gulf of Mexico healthy. We've allowed silt from the Miss to pour into the Gulf, choking off valuable wildlife and natural resources instead of letting it replenish the wetlands. It's time to reverse that damage. The city should remain permanently evacuated, the remains of buildings and infrastructure torn down, the levy system removed and let nature take its course.

I'm sure there's enormous political pressure to rebuild this city, but like many places that learned their lesson after the great tsunami, there are just certain places that should NOT be rebuilt. And that includes the coastlines from Texas to Florida and beyond. It's time we stopped supporting frivolous and dangerous development. We have to pay each time a Florida beach is wiped out by a strom. Why? Because special interests demand it. It's time this maddness ends.

Re:It's time to do the right thing - bury it

[Nonillion]

Agreed! Stick a fork in it, New Orleans is done. It pisses me off enough that oil refineries are kept in this hurricane prone region. Not to mention the idiotic oil traders use any and all excuses to artificially run up the cost of fuel. As unfeeling as it may seem abandon the city and don't rebuild. I don't want my tax money to be used in a futile rebuilding exercise only to be destroyed again in the next hurricane.

Re:Adam Smith talked about a "pure free market"...

[graybeard]

Even funnier is when one pretends to know Smith, then (mis)quotes Thomas Hobbes, from Leviathan: 'No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.'

a matter of cost Re:Call to evacuate TOO LATE

[whathappenedtomonday]

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/ 1996/vp960906/09060560.htm/

old info, actual figures should be a lot higher today.
By one estimate, hurricane preparation can cost $670,000 per mile. The figure includes the expense of moving Navy warships out to sea, business and personal losses and the government's tab.

the longer you wait, the more precisely you know which areas to evacuate (=cheaper)
you might ask why property is still more valuable than lives, tho' ...

cripes, but you're an ass

[sbma44]

First: the French Quarter is above the level of the lake that is currently flooding the city. This is the oldest part of the city, and was built "high enough".

Can you blame people for building out the city beyond its original boundaries? No. Can you blame them for not having rigorous meteorological science available when the city was founded? No. Can you blame them for not having laser and satellite measuring available to determine that the city is sinking? No. Can you blame people for making decisions about where to live that are based on culture, where they were born, the culture into which they were born, and historical accident? No. You can't.

This *is* Slashdot, so I suppose you should be forgiven for thinking that old cities were founded and build like a game of Simcity. But of course they weren't.

We're all Americans, and we're all in this together. I don't live in a storm-prone area, but I'm quite confident that losing all your material posessions is a sufficient economic disincentive to make the point to those affected. Besides, insurance underwriters already figure location into their premiums. We don't need to make these people pay for being rescued off their rooftops.

If you're so upset about this wealth transfer, I invite you to take advantage of this great opportunity and move to a disaster-prone area. Nobody's stopping you -- you can cash in today! You might not add much to the immense cultural and historical contributions of cities like New Orleans or San Francisco, but I'm sure they'd be glad to have you anyway.

Re:cripes, but you're an ass

[ifwm]

And you have conveniently missed the point. Building in the area around New Orleans may have occurred before we really knew the extent of what could happen (the truth is that we did know, and I have to wonder why you try to make it appear otherwise).

Now that we do know for certain, rebuilding there is simply tossing good money after bad.

Re:cripes, but you're an ass

[alcmena]

And why is that? The city survived 300 years before this happened. I would venture to say that any city that has a 300 year time span between true disasters (even if there was always the "threat" of disaster) did quite well.

Re:cripes, but you're an ass

[ifwm]

"The city survived 300 years before this happened. I would venture to say that any city that has a 300 year time span between true disasters (even if there was always the "threat" of disaster) did quite well."

Exept the city has had disasters before. SO apart from being ignorant to fact, your argument seems pretty sound.

Global Warming

[chadseld]

We've had huge hurricanes before. And we several hurricanes each year, any one of which could have done this damage with a direct hit. So, what is the effect of global warming on this storm? Did global warming aim the storm at New Orleans? That's a neat trick.

Re:Global Warming

[letxa2000]

Isn't it though?

I'm so sick of people--mostly liberal--trying to blame everything on someone, usually Bush. Levees broke? That's because Bush spent money in Iraq instead of New Orleans. Big storm hit New Orleans? That's because Bush didn't go along with Kyoto.

So many liberals are science- and logic-challenged.

Re:Global Warming

[tabrnaker]

yeah, those damn liberals, always so prejudiced and making general statements that they know nothing about.

Wait, isn't that what you're doing?

Us and them will always exist as long as we think in terms of us and them.

Re:Global Warming

[letxa2000]

I'm so sick of people--mostly conservative--trying to blame everything on someone, usually God.

Really? Got some examples? Conservatives generally don't blame God, except for a few wacky fanatical fundamental Christians that have a skewed view of Christianity.

Levees broke? That's because God is angry that nobody is stoning homosexuals. Big storm hit New Orleans? That's because God is angry that abortions happen.

Has anyone actually said this, or is this something you're just making up in a desperate attempt to have a point? If so, you've failed miserably.

Re:Global Warming

[Firethorn]

I'll just chime in on this.

There's currently a wacko out there protesting at soldier's funerals, saying they died because God is angry because they're supporting a government that condones gays. Even organizations that have formed to oppose gay marrage and rights say he's a kook.

You tend to have nuts/wackos/loons at the extremes of any spectrum.

Bzzt

[Digz]

Actually, from what I've read, global warming would cause the polar ice caps to start melting, which would lower the temperature of the oceans. Lower ocean temperatures would yield fewer hurricanes. This is, in effect, the exact opposite.

Re:Bzzt

[hurfy]

Melting some ice into the ocean could in fact cool it.
Nonetheless, if earth heats up overall, so will the water. The cooler water from ice could bring ocean back close as an average.

Except that may leave colder water than normal in poles and warmer water than normal in middle. Bigger temperature variations are rarely a good thing :(

Seattle too...

[willCode4Beer.com]

Seattle was rasied as well.
In many places the second floor simply became the first floor while the first floor ended up being underground.
There's even a small tourist business around giving tours of the accessible parts.
http://www.undergroundtour.com/

Re:What the heck?

[Guppy06]

"When I took a riverboat ride, I saw thousands of homes over the levee that are clearly below water level. I couldn't help but think "what the hell are these people thinking?" These are brick homes with cars in the driveway, not shacks."

You were on the river. Which bank were you looking at?

"Look at the place on maps.google.com and learn what you're talking about before you post crap like this."

How about I just live in Saint Charles Parish for five years or so instead?

The "nice places" you were talking about tend not to be in New Orleans, I'd wager you were looking at the West Bank when you saw those homes. But even if you did find someplace decent-looking in Orleans Parish proper, they have a habit of ending very abruptly, much moreso than you'd expect coming from points further north (I grew up near Baltimore for reference). Most of those nicer neighorhoods are gated communities, and its a whole other world once you drive outside that gate. A few years back I helped the fiance of a friend move out of a nice little gated apartment complex in West Jeff, and pretty much from the gate looking out you could see the Friendly Neighborhood Crack Dealer.

I've also driven a bit around southeast Louisiana (specifically the third Congressional district), and many parts of the more rural parishes are similarly iffy. Sure, there are small towns/cities along the river, quaint little places you'd expect to see on a postcard from the beginning of the Twentieth Century, but it's also very easy to hop on a road leading away from US 90 and away from civilization. I was mostly driving between post offices, and I was in a number of delapidated old buildings that are smaller than the two bed/bath apartment I live in now. And they were both larger and in better condition than some of the houses they served. Even driving along River Road along the West Bank in Saint Charles Parish what you can see from the road changes quickly.

So you took a trip to New Orleans and got to see the tourist parts, the parts of the city that actually bring in money. You probably saw the riverfront as far up as the convention center, and maybe as far down as the aquarium. Or perhaps you took a more detailed tour and got to see a litle bit of the French Quater (IMO, the tourist-laden parts of the French Quarter, lined with bars, clubs, and strip joints support my arguments), some of the tree-lined stretches of St. Charles from a streetcar, maybe near the Tulane and Loyola campuses. But I doubt you took Poydras north of I-10. "Seeing the sights" of any city is designed to give you a pleasant experience, but is by no means useful for judging the general character of it. If you just stuck with the Mallthe memorials and the museums, you'd have no idea where Washington DC's crime rate came from.

Sure thing

[BlackCobra43]

Just cut me a check for a few hundred quadrillion dollars and I'll rebuild allllll those seaboard cities elsewhere.

Ditch the false dichotomy. tt's not as simple as "Live elsewhere or don't complain, stupids lololol"

Re:Sinking :Look at this from popularmechanics'01

[Hooptie]

it's just that many chose to ignore it and stay

Im not sure this is an accurate statement. Many of the people that remained in New Orleans probably did not have the means, both financial and physical, to evacuate. Many of them probably don't own vehicles or couln't afford to buy 2 or 3 tanks of gas in a single day travel somewhere safer. So, they stayed behind and did they best they could.

Hooptie

Re:Leave it alone

[anOminousCow]

We don't have hurricanes around here, but we do have a few tornados. So maybe I should be using F5 cabling instead of cat 5?

New Orleans Problems Extend Outside New Orleans

[8127972]

For example, I woke up this morning to discover that the price of gas in Toronto Canada shot up 20% because of this hurricane. Anybody want to bet that we will see the cost of everything from Oranges to gas go up in the coming weeks?

Sudden price increases like this cannot be good for the economy.

Pope, Mardi Gras, and Hurricanes

[Ranger]

I've only been to Nawlins (New Orleans) a few times. Once was to see the Pope, and another was for Mardi Gras. I was already an athiest by the time of the Pope. I guess it was just inertia from being a recovering Catholic that I decided to go. And there we were in our smurf suits (Air Force blues) telling each other bad Catholic jokes.

I did get to see the back of the Pontiff's head as his Popemobile drove by in the torrential rain. I think there were 250,000 people in that huge fucking field.

Mardi Gras was more fun. "Show us your tits!" 'nuf said.

I had my first Hurricane there. A wicked, wicked drink of fruit punch with rum. Why wicked? It only takes one to get you blottoed. It's probably the closest drink to a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster you'll ever find on Earth, that's legal.

Now it looks like New Orleans drank it's own hurricane. It'll be a decade before the city fully recovers, and it will be transformed. Perhaps the Dutch will lend us their engineering skills to help build a better levee system. New Orleans can be resurrected and should be. Alas, it won't be possible for many of it's citizens.

Things that make you go Hmmmmm....

[DarthVain]

"what can be done to prevent and/or lessen such disasters in the future?"

1) First the whole shebang is below sea level.
2) It has this thing called a bayou, which for all intents is another word for swamp.
3) It exists in a flood plain
4) It is close to the Gulf of Mexico where there seem to be an awful lot of bad weather..
5) Is in an area coined 'Hurricane Alley'

How about this for an answer? Don't freakin' live there! Granted this is an over the top event, but I can hardly believe that people didn't see this eventally happening.

Its a lot like those idiots living in trailers in 'Tornado Alley' that 'can't beleve' its happend to them, who would have though that a tornado might blow away a trailer in that area, its like absurd.

That also goes for all your people living on the coast or even a major river. These things flood. That is what flood is. Add a storm, and you get big flood. Florida you know who you are. Like when I see on TV some guy were his house has been washed away, for like the THIRD time in a single year. Take a hint... (don't build there anymore). Certainly don't bitch about your insurance either.

Anyways thats the end of my little rant.

Re:Things that make you go Hmmmmm....

[twistedcubic]

Its a lot like those idiots living in trailers in 'Tornado Alley' that 'can't beleve' its happend to them, who would have though that a tornado might blow away a trailer in that area, its like absurd.

When a tornado hits a house, it smashes it like a bomb. When a tornado hits a trailer, it smashes it like a bomb. You are a fool.

Define "break-proof" please...

[wikdwarlock]

because when I read this

we can't design a 'break-proof' system. We either need a system that can't break, or...

my head starts to hurt.

Re:Define "break-proof" please...

[DavidTC]

A break-proof system is one that is breakable, but we have implimented controls to completely stop that. Think 'child-proof'.

A system that can't break is one that has no failure mode at all.

At least, that's what I meant.

Re:Water City-Giant Metal arms in NL

[halightw]

Google maps image of the arms (retracted)

Re:Sinking :Look at this from popularmechanics'01

[dreamchaser]

I'm sure you're right and some had no means, but they ran quite a few interviews on various news outlets of people saying 'I survived Camile, I'll live through this one too.'

A well-known, certain event.

[gosand]

What gets my fucking goat is all the assholes who are saying "oh well, what did you fucking expect based on where you live? Fuck em". They aren't joking, they aren't using "coping mechanisms". They are just cold-hearted fucktards who could give a crap about anything in life that doesn't directly affect them. Douchebags.

It is absolutely a sad, horrible, tragic thing that happened. And EVERYONE knew it would happen someday. It was a certainty. I visited New Orleans in '99, and I heard several times on a couple of different tours that the city was slowly sinking. The highest point in the entire city is just a few feet above sea-level. How they spend tons of money every year to pump the water off the land.

I am NOT saying they deserve it, but this was by no means a surprise. People knew this was coming, they just didn't think it would come now. Everyone was told "evacuate the city". Granted, some couldn't. But some said "We've seen this before, we aren't going anywhere".

Yeah, there will be asshats who will take a hard-line stance because they have no empathy or common decency. But I don't think ANYONE is surprised that this happened. It is an absolute tragedy. And when this is all over, if they try to rebuild New Orleans where it stands, they should have their asses kicked.

Oh yeah, THAT's why your deficit is ballooning

[BlackCobra43]

It's not MULTIBILLION contracts to FRAUDULENT corporations like Haliburton, not the war in Iraq, not the war in Afganisthan, not the rising price of oil, not overspending and pork-filled bills for Big Companies With Big Lobbies, nooooo, it's fucking federal disaster aid.

Ridiculous. There's A LOT more stuff you need to cut before DISASTER AID you clueless idiot.

Flood insurance

[MemeRot]

Flood insurance is only offered by the federal government. Private insurance companies don't offer it, at least to anyone in a flood plain, because they have recognized that to do so is to subsidize this cycle of flooding/rebuilding/flooding/rebuilding ad nauseum.

I wish the government would figure this out too. The homeowners in the area with homeowner's insurance are covered for damage due to wind and wind-driven rain, just not flooding.

The problem with the first floor idea is that there are 3 story buildings with the roof just sticking out of the water. You'd have to add at least 3 or 4 stories of building to be sacrificed to flooding, at which point it makes more sense to raise the ground level to at least 10 feet above sea level.

He is the commander in chief

[cybrthng]

He can mobilize the military and be a leader.

9/11 he was there within 15 hours, 8/29/05 8/29/05 he says he might show up by friday?

The point is he can mobilize people and make this a national priority. We can't afford the loss of 100 billion dollars of the economy, oil pipelines and such.

We rallied for war after 9/11, why the f can't we rally for piece, rally for safety, rally for those 1.5 million homeless pople across 5 states down there and work to make a difference for all?

Re:He is the commander in chief

[EricTheGreen]

He can mobilize the military and be a leader.

Are we reading the same news sources? The military has been mobilized, to the degree it can legally be. The Navy is sending ships with water and supplies, as well as a hospital tender. The A.C.E. is in full-blown Apollo 13 mode, trying to figure out how to use mega-size sandbags, shipping containers and the odd barge to plug the levee breaks. They're doing everything they can to support local relief and the Louisiana National Guard. If the governors want to declare martial law, the Army proper can go in, and I'm sure they're well-aware of that. No one is standing around with their thumbs up their butts right now.

We rallied for war after 9/11, why the f can't we rally for piece, rally for safety, rally for those 1.5 million homeless pople across 5 states down there and work to make a difference for all?

Why not indeed? And who says that isn't already happening? Or does the CinC need to be standing behind a Red Cross lectern for a "rally" to take place? You can't turn on a TV, open a paper, or view a web page right now without a reference to how individuals can help, either via work or money. And good on it, for being that way.

9/11 he was there within 15 hours, 8/29/05 8/29/05 he says he might show up by friday?

They don't need the president down there right now. They need a levee plugged, roads cleared, supplies, medicine and on-the-ground help.

There will be a time and place for symbology. That time is not now; now the living need to be protected, the dead accounted for and conditions stabilized to the point where cleanup and support can begin.

I'm no huge fan of our CinC, but for anyone to suggest he's not doing the job he can (or should), is not only opportunistic sniping, it's ignorant.

A Venice of the South?

[Ranger]

Perhaps a New New Orleans could be built on artificial islands and piers with canals replacing the streets. Smaller historic areas could be placed behind levees and dikes and would be easier to protect. Of course a riverboat wouldn't be as maneuverable or sexy as a gondola. Maybe James Cameron could film an underwater version of A Streetcar Named Desire.

Re:Leave it alone

[Maxo-Texas]

I have plenty of friends- some for over 20 years. And I have a good relationship with my relatives.

That doesn't change the fact that people permanently break off relations with friends and relatives every day. If you think otherwise, you need to get in touch with reality.

It's not global warming according to this guy...

[atlacatl]

Well...This guy says it's not global warming.

He said in a Salon article: "When we looked at the historical record, we found that the frequency of storms globally hasn't really changed at all," Emanuel said. "It's about 90 per year, plus or minus 10. The frequency globally appears to be steady."

He's also arguing that over development in these areas is the culprit of so much destruction. I.e. There is more stuff that gets damaged.

The whole article:

Aug. 30, 2005 - Hurricane Katrina has turned New Orleans into "a wilderness," said one public health official, who begged evacuated residents not to return to the city for at least a week. Rife with poisonous water moccasins and fire ants, downed trees and power lines, without fresh drinking water, power, gas or sewage, the storm has made the battered and flooded city uninhabitable.

Katrina is just the latest in a rash of powerful hurricanes that have been pummeling the Atlantic in recent years, including a record-breaking 33 between 1995 and 1999. It's made many wonder if global warming is bringing the wrath of the planet down upon all our heads. Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has studied historical records of hurricanes around the globe, said the answer is yes and no.

In a recent paper, "Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones Over the Past 30 Years," published in the science journal Nature, Emanuel found that as sea temperatures rise, the duration and intensity of hurricanes are going up, too.

The reason for the correlation is pretty straightforward: "Hurricanes derive their energy from the evaporation of sea water," Emanuel explained in a phone interview. "When you evaporate water from the ocean you actually transfer heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. A similar effect happens when you come out of the shower in the morning. You feel cold because water is evaporating from your skin, and taking heat from your body. That heat energy doesn't disappear." Instead, it fuels the intensity of hurricanes.

So, as global warming increases, expect hurricanes to get stronger. However, that doesn't mean, as some perceive, that there are actually more of them lately. "When we looked at the historical record, we found that the frequency of storms globally hasn't really changed at all," Emanuel said. "It's about 90 per year, plus or minus 10. The frequency globally appears to be steady."

The recent hurricanes in the Atlantic, Emanuel explained, represent a natural fluctuation. Every 20 to 30 years, since records started being kept in the 19th century, there have been big shifts in the frequency of hurricanes in the Atlantic. "For example, in the 1940s and '50s, there were very busy years, whereas the 1970s and '80s were very quiet years," he said. "And we've had a big upswing in the Atlantic beginning in about 1995. That's all natural."

The reason violent Atlantic hurricanes like Katrina may strike people as unnatural, and cause them to blame the CO2 pouring out of their neighbors' Hummers, is not because of their frequency but their destruction to people and places.

"This natural fluctuation occurs in a social environment where there is a huge shift in demographic trends, and this makes a big difference in people's perception," Emanuel said. "In the 1940s and '50s, there were lots of hurricanes in Florida, but there weren't lots of people there. So now that we're having this upswing again, it's being perceived very differently" -- for the simple fact that there is a lot more stuff to be ruined.

Meteorologists performed admirably in alerting public officials to Katrina's rising destruction, allowing them to evacuate New Orleans and other Gulf Coast cities in plenty of time. But Emanuel said that other warnings by meteorologists have gone unheeded in past decades

My theory about brontosaurs...

[Thud457]

My plan to save New Orleans ^W^W Des Moines from the inevetiable ravages of global warming:

1. Build nukes - NOW no electricity generation from fossil fuels in 20 years
2. Kill McDonalds' - everyone goes on a forced vegetarian diet. No more bovine flatulence cluttering up the atmosphere. And it's more healthy, too.
3. Seqways for all - no more private transport burning fossil fuels.
4. Plant a million forests - You know those great plains that are experiencing a precipitous population drop that those wackos want to re-introduce buffalo to ? Plant trees over the whole area, and re-intorduce elk instead. Trees are Nature's carbon sink. Build up a corps of woodmen to look after these crucial trees, and then cut them down. (These woodsmen could also keep in check any big bad wolves, who also reside in forests.) Seal this lumber up in the deepest mineshafts, so their trapped carbon never endangers our oceanfront beachhouses ever again!
5. Cities on stilts - why do you think the Jestsons live in a purple martin house?!!!

If you make me dictator with a solid gold Cadillac and agree to follow my eminently rational and simple plan, along with any whims I have along the way, like, say damming up the Mississippi and making it flow backward, I can 100% guarentee that you will be safe from any nasty storm surge.

Poor definition of socialism.

[Clansman]

Life savings? Not really. Without the knowledge the state will step in, they would simply have insured themselves in advance, privately for the total loss of their environment and for a sum capable of rebuilding everything from the city layout up. 25billion USD worth.

Feasible? Nope, not even remotely. Alternative? Invest, over time, in a state apparatus big enough to defend you from all the massive threats - war, disaster, famine.

It's not socialism because that's not the best definition of socialism - all states do this work to some degree, even yours. Socialism attempts to remove *all* risks even housing, employment, education and health.

The current free market allows for defence and disaster to be covered with some even tolerating education and health.

Construction should be under way..

[MrCopilot]

Construction should be under way on Newer Orleans.

I live on the east coast of Florida. We lost our house in the first one last year, while we were in it, a quarter of the roof went for a sightseeing tour of cental Florida.

I know if there was a strong likelyhood of flooding, I would move away. I chose my new house based on the flooding I have seen in this town over the last 10 yrs. I obviously wouldn't move to the low lying areas.

Here was my rational for not moving away from here before and after.

The Odds of your particular town being in the path of a hurricane are pretty high against.
Th Odds of said hurricane damaging your property are still pretty high.
The Odds of said damage to be catastrophic are even higher.
The Odds of it happening twice are astronomical.
Just to prove my point the second Hurricane (2weeks later) did no damage to my temporary housing (a 20 yr old Trailer with a lean to extension) despite destroying several others on my street.

Having said all that, my property wasn't (and Isn't) below sea level. The community rebuilt. It was a mother bitch for a few months. People lost homes, work, family members. FEMA was on the job, for the most part. But again, our water washed back out or to lower ground. Hard to deliver supplies underwater. We are just now seeing the roof repairs being completed. (Where I work contractor says 2 more weeks don't they always)

So my recommendation: All effort be to rebuild immediately HIGHER.

I know, we need the ports.
COMMUTE.

I know, the cajuns. hmmm......
FEMA bought trailers for FL. Houseboats for N.O.

This situation sucks all the way round, I gauruntee dat.

To all calling for a temporary ban of jokes, I must remind you, we humans use humor to cope. I have a deep understanding of the pain a hurricane can cause, however, I can, nay NEED to find something to break the sadness and tension occasionally. Hell, you should have heard some of the jokes we were telling during our aftermath. 'insert random Skylight joke here'

Their losses are not funny. They are not at fault for where they where born. I just wish I had a good joke that wasn't tasteless to put here to prove my point.

Good Luck to you all.

Re:Construction should be under way..

[Electric Eye]

So how exactly is the city supposed to rebuild itslef higher? Raise a few hundred square miles by 20 feet? Right. Another expense I don't want to pay for.

Re:Construction should be under way..

[MrCopilot]

So how exactly is the city supposed to rebuild itslef higher? How about move a few miles in any direction that leads above sea level?

Cities don't rebuild themselves, cities have to be rebuilt at great expense and manpower. Rebuild this one somewhere else above sea level. Wow, was I that unclear?

Raise a few hundred square miles by 20 feet? Right. Another expense I don't want to pay for.

Tough. You probably didn't want to help me out last year when FEMA did either. Shall we all inhabit the very small portion of the country not affected by Flood, Hurricane, Tornado, Earthquake, LandSlide, Avalanche, WildFire, etc...? Of course not. I don't want to pay taxes either but we all do pal. At least this money will go to help victims of this TRAGEDY rather than support causing one overseas. We should, however, have a healthy debate about whether it is wise to reinvest in the same swamp-to-be-flooded again or relocate the city somewhere comparatively safer. You know my vote. 9Weeks from now we could have refugee city just outside of town or just begin clearing rotted debris. I pick NEWER ORLEANS, "Now above SeaLevel"

Damn, I've never been to Bourbon Street. Never been to Mardi Gras. Never had NAWLENS Gumbo. The tragedy just keeps growing.

Re:Construction should be under way..

[scheming daemons]

I bet lots of people in the red states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama aren't so much in favor of smaller government anymore.

If Katrina had hit Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York ... Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson would be calling it God's retribution for the inhabitants' wickedness.

Re:Construction should be under way..

[psykocrime]

I bet lots of people in the red states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama aren't so much in favor of smaller government anymore.

Why? Bigger government wouldn't have prevented this catastrophe. And the already huge government system we have is proving slow to respond to mitigate the damage and assist survivors.

The problem is, people have become overly dependent on "The Goverment" to solve all their problems for them. Everybody just sits back and expects that when something bad happens, "The Government" will just show up and make everything better automatically (and overnight!) and when that doesn't happen (which it clearly couldn't) they are disappointed and angry.

People need more of a sense of self-reliance, and reliance on smaller, more local (and therefore more immediately responsive) government, civic and charitable organizations. Calling for bigger government is not the answer.

sure, but I don't care

[Trepidity]

The most relevant difference is that Pat Robertson isn't in charge of any country, and therefore is no serious threat to anyone.

Were he in danger of becoming U.S. President, I'd be more worried about him, but that isn't going to happen.

Re:sure, but I don't care

[Ihlosi]

The most relevant difference is that Pat Robertson isn't in charge of any country, and therefore is no serious threat to anyone.

So that's why Osama bin Laden hasn't been caught yet ! Brilliant ! He's not in charge of any country either, and therefore he's no serious threat to anyone, too.

Congress cut funding to support their local pork

[AHumbleOpinion]

Ah, but why did Congress have to cut funding? To pay for the tax cuts to get reelected and for the war that Bush wanted ...

Congress passed the tax cuts, the budget is their Constitutional responsibility. They cut funding to spend money on their local pork projects, to resurrect local military contracts for weapons the Pentagon says they don't need or want, etc.

... Remember, this is a war that Bush decided he could start without the need for Congress to declare it.

Congress authorized the President to use military force, they authorized the war although they did not want to use the word "war". Declaring war is Congress' Constitutional responsibility.

I realize you don't like Bush, that's fine, but at least be intellectually honest and blame the correct folks.

Re:What can be done about it?

[Red Flayer]

"We all know why this is happening to us.
Yep, because terrorists hate our freedom."

No, because Emeril got his just desserts when His Noodly Appendage descended to "kick things up a notch" -- BAM!

The Health System is being overhauled

[xeno-cat]

Funny you should mention the health system because I just read that Chavez is spending 2.5 billion over the next 2 years to completely modernise it.

Link to story

As for Western style diet and education, if you mean American style, well, they might be better with what they have.

Kind Regards

How do settlements like this start? The French.

[AHumbleOpinion]

Actually the settlement started on the "high" ground. Over the centuries it grew, and sank.

And of course the obligatory: "blame France". It was their city to begin with. :-)

Re:Just dead Red Staters. I am so happy.

[letxa2000]

Actually it's pretty easy to break down states by county and you'll see that most of the country is Republican. About the only state that isn't mostly Republican is New Mexico.

Obviously that's on a geographical basis, but if you are dropped in any random point in the United States, most likely you'll be in the midst of conservatives. :)

Yes, he has -- see link

[guacamolefoo]

From: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1083195&page =4

"Emergency medical teams from across the country were sent into the region and President Bush cut short his Texas vacation Tuesday to return to Washington to focus on the storm damage."

While it's not obvious from the timing of your post, many of the "anti-Bush" follow-up posts were made well after Bush had already cut his vacation short.

Mindless anti-Bushism is just as bad as mindless pro-Bushism. And no, I'm not suggesting that your comment, though inflammatory, was motivated by the former. Clearly some "me-too" posts were, however.

GF.

Dike is a proper spelling.

[Richard Steiner]

A plethora of examples can be found here

Solutions, bad and good.

[goodmanj]

The Europeans posting here with comparisons to the Netherlands fail to understand the problem. New Orleans *is* built like the Netherlands. But a really bad North Sea storm surge (like the 1953 surge which killed 2000 people) raises sea level by 3 meters. New Orleans has had *two* storm surges *twice* that high in the last 50 years.

The people saying "it's their own damn fault for building below sea level" don't understand how cities grow over centuries. When New Orleans was founded, it *was* well above sea level -- the original settlers found it a bit risky, but acceptable. The city is sinking, and the people living in lowlying neighborhoods have always been among the poorest -- for them, it's a choice between a home which might flood, or no home at all. Tight city planning restrictions might have prevented this, but the decisions were made 50-150 years ago, in a climate of intense racism and class division. It's specious to say "it's their own fault", since those at fault aren't the same "they" as those who suffer.

People who suggest jacking up the city like Chicago are on the right track, but fail to understand the magnitude of the problem. Chicago did this in the 1850s, when its population was 30-60,000. Something like half a square mile of downtown Chicago is now raised above the river. Here, we're talking about half a million people, and 50 square miles of city. And even then, remember that Chicago's basement level totally flooded due to a tunnel rupture in 1992.

New Orleans is an engineering and planning failure, but probably not one which could have been prevented. People have no choice but to make the best of existing situations, and what seems wise at one point in a city's long history may only be proven foolish years or centuries down the road. Long-term plans also conflict with short-term needs, and short-term needs usually win.

There is no silver lining to this tragedy, except that it gives us a chance to start over, essentially completely from scratch, and do things right this time. New Orleans is now more or less a horribly blank slate: almost all the buildings in the city will need to be torn down after soaking in water for weeks. As I see it, there are three long-term ways to solve the problem of New Orleans.

1) Abandon the city. This is almost inconceivable. In addition to the massive impact on Mississippi River and Gulf Coast commerce, what do you do with the million people displaced? Even if they scatter across the country, a million poor homeless refugees will be catastrophic to the already-struggling state and national poverty programs. If they all move only to neighboring states, state governments will collapse under the load. Nevertheless, this might actually be the cheapest long-term solution.

2) Stilt houses. No, don't laugh. In Hawaii where I grew up, many coastal houses are built on 10-foot timber or concrete stilts to keep them above the height of storm surges and tidal waves. We could rebuild every single house in New Orleans as a stilt house. It would make the houses more costly to rebuild, but not by much. The next flood would still destroy roads and utilities, but the houses and their residents could be saved.

3) Jack and fill. Like Chicago, but more so. Demolish all the flooded houses. Grab every dredge, barge, and dump truck you can, and start on one end of the city, dumping Missisippi Delta mud onto the ground ten feet deep. On the other end of the city, start building houses with sturdy frames on concrete pier foundations. When the landfill reaches a rebuild neighborhood, jack up the houses ten feet, dump in ten feet of landfill, and continue on to the next neighborhood. As the city keeps sinking over the next centuries, keep jacking up houses and dumping more dirt. It's probably a $100-$200 billion project (it'd be more, but most of New Orleans' houses are very cheap), but it's a solid long-term solution for keeping New Orleans above water forever.

The one thing we can't afford to do is the one thing that will almost certainly happen. The levees will be plugged, the pumps repaired, and the city rebuilt as it stood a week ago. And forty years from now, this will happen again.

Re:Solutions, bad and good.

[physicist]

New Orleans *is* built like the Netherlands. But a really bad North Sea storm surge (like the 1953 surge which killed 2000 people) raises sea level by 3 meters. New Orleans has had *two* storm surges *twice* that high in the last 50 years.

Dutch dykes are built with the assumption that they may fail such that a major city will be flooded every 10.000 years, in contrast those in New Orleans may fail every 230 years. Furthermore during a bad storm the North Sea level rises more than three meters. It's just, that the storm surge barriers close at that height. Rotterdam

But where will I get my beads???

[elrous0]

This sucks man. This year I was ready to show my tits and everything.

-Eric

They can always catch a ride from Pepe

[elrous0]

He's always going somewhere in that truck of his.

-Eric

Local Governors say Bush/White House involved

[AHumbleOpinion]

I watched CNN this morning and one of the Governors was mentioning that the President and White House have been helping to orgranize federal efforts. The Governor(s) told the President it was too early to personally inspect the devastation.

I realize it may be difficult for some to realize but a President is never truly away from the office. Vacations are being offsite and only working single digit hours as opposed to being in DC and working far into the double digit hours. And that is when there is no crisis.

I'm from and live in Houston

[boy_afraid]

Yep, I'm typing from Houston right now. I'm a native, born and raised. To Galvenston is a place to get away from it all just for a few hours. I know its not New Orleans, but its the closest "cute" (self defined) as we are going to get. Some of us aren't excited about the water there, then that's why a lot of people go to South Padre Island with much clearer water and not as much muck.

My question: What is the devesation/death comparison to the Galveston hurricane storm of 1900 compared to Hurricane Katrina? It has always been proud (sort of) to say that Galveston had largest/worst natural disaster of US history. Didn't the 1900 hurricane have 8,000 deaths. There are SOOOOOO many horror stories of that storm (like the one with Nuns and orphans tied to each other with a rope to keep the children from being swept away, but then after the storm someone found a rope and started pulling on it and found all the Nuns and children dead all still attached).

The last hurricane we had was Alicia (1983) and that was scary as hell. We are waaaayyy overdue for one that when we get one it will kick our ass. The last disaster we had here was Tropical Storm Allison. It is not that difficult to understand what New Orleans is going through because we Houstonians had the shit kicked out of us after that. I'm sure everyone remembers that! The TNT network had a television movie about what the Medical Center went through with that storm (Ricky Schroder was in it, and BTW a lot of the stuff in there were LIES: Neighborhoods around there, easy accessibility to the hospitals [you can't park in front idiots, it's like a small city unto itself], idiotic characters and weather [it was in the middle of June or July and the movie was set in winter/fall with people is winter coats, frost, and foggy breathing])

Re:I wonder...how arrogant Americans can be...

[Rycross]

Yeah, a lot of us (Americans) are shaking our heads at that one. What happened is pretty devestating, but comparing it to the tsunami is overreacting.

Poll at work: "Reporters and politicians have been calling Katrina "our tsunami". Is that reasonable?"
Yes: 0
No: 12

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[elrous0]

Well, in his defense, Christians are widely known for their compassion and humanity.

-Eric

Re:America "chernobyl". Just walk awayDis

[Vagary]

In Distraction, the Dutch declare war on the US so that the Americans will take the Netherlands over and deal with the flooding crisis by relocating the entire population. Incidentally, much of the book takes place in Louisiana, but without any flooding.

Personally, I think the Dutch would be better off in space.

Haiti Could Help?

[Vagary]

Maybe Haiti can take in the refugees? Provided Canada doesn't annex it first, of course...

Not Insightful

[Vagary]

The generalization of the McDonald's Rule of War is that people who live in rich places don't fight wars. So the problem is that the Middle East is already too inhospitable, making it more so will only increase the violence (until everyone is dead, which I guess your plan would speed up). Terraforming the Middle East would be much more effective.

Re:Not Insightful

[Tumbleweed]

The current situation with the US, and Germany in WWI and II disprove that theory with a vengeance.

"Religion breeds terrorism."

Re:Not Insightful

[Vagary]

I was only half-serious, the McDonalds Rule of War has been disproved. That being said, your counterexamples can be responded to:

1. Wilhelminian Germany was in opposition to the Allies (particularly Britain) as a result of its attempts to catch up in the Empire game after its late formation as a nation.
2. Weimar Germany was suffering from economic failure when Hitler became Chancellor, it was the conversion to a war economy which fuelled the recovery.
3. The US is not as rich as it would like to be, particularly in oil.* Gulf War 2 could also be seen as a distraction for the increasingly inevitable non-rich status.

* Natural-resource-rich is probably more important than being rich in general. I assert that The Middle East is so screwed up because they sell all their resources rather than using them internally.

Global Warming: The New Superstition

[JSBiff]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that there is no global warming. But I've noticed a growing tendency over the last few years, that any time you have bad weather events, that you get a lot of non-scientists raising the global warming alarm.

It reminds me of a documentary I was watching recently on Benjamin Franklin, and they were talking about the cultural environment of Boston during the late 1700's, and how if someone's house or business was struck by lighting, the Boston FD would put out neighboring houses and buildings, but not the original house or building, because it was deemed that God had chosen to punish the occupents by striking them with lightning.

People never seem to accept that bad weather, lightning strikes, and even severe hurricanes are just a normal part of the weather cycle (even if a hurricane this strong might only happens once or twice a century - in geological terms that would be pretty normal).

I think that Global Warming has become the new superstition of the 20th century. Looking for something to blame fires, hurricanes, droughts, floods, anything you want on? Global Warming!!!!!

Re:Global Warming: The New Superstition

[Firethorn]

Well, you might have heard that, but it was pretty much more along the lines that by the time the FD could get there, the primary starting place of the fire would be fully engulfed. Thus, they'd concentrate their efforts on preventing the spread of the fire. Usually by wetting down the sides and roofs of the buildings closest.

Imagine trying to put out even a one story fire with lines of people with buckets, versus dedicated, high speed water pumps putting out hundreds of gallons a minute.

And yes, what's happening to New Orleans now has pretty much been predicted for the last century. It's simple:
City, near water, below sea level, in hurricane territory. I mean, come on.

There's a reason that terms like 'storm of the century' exist. Weather varies by cycles. We're also living in many more areas than in the past, such that every storm gets noticed now. It used to be that storms had a fair chance of hitting 'nowhere populated'. Maybe a farm or three.

Used to be man was the biggest risk in the cities. Fire, Arson, was a shoot on sight offense. Why? Whole sections of cities could, and did, go up in flames.

Re:Leave it alone

[anOminousCow]

Actually, the levies were built to ensure deep enough water for shipping. Barge traffic on the mississipi is an important means of moving grain from the midwest. Oherwise the river gets to be 5 miles wide and 6 inches deep.

Re:Adam Smith talked about a "pure free market"...

[SatanicPuppy]

"Life, in a state of nature, is nasty, brutish, and short."

Thomas Hobbes said that, not Adam Smith. It's from Leviathan

Re:Leave it alone

[LWATCDR]

Actually Tokyo is vulnerable Earth quakes and Typhoons. BTW your home owners insurance doesn't cover volcano or earthquakes... Doesn't really matter if Rainier goes off a good chunk of Seattle will be dead anyway. Hard to collect that way.

A 20+ foot wall of water has the same effect,

[crovira]

regardless of whether its caused by an earth movement or by a storm surge. There is a lot less death with the storm surge because we had some time to prepare and get away from shore. If we could predict earthquakes like we do storms it would make the 'time to die' greater that the 'time to escape'.

But the buildings, trees, hotels, businesses etcetera are just as vulnerable, and are just as devastated as Indonesia was (more if you consider the 'cost of replacement' value of the infrastructure.)

What about New York?

[lilmouse]

Should ppl not live in NYC because it's such a great Terrorist target? Should people just get up and move? Should the federal government not pay to help out after massive terrorist attacks (not that they have, mind you)?

More food for thought :)

--LWM

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[ChrisMaple]

The likely aftermath is that most of the city will be rebuilt and the levees will be built higher and stronger. People will complain about the cost. Some corporations will relocate or build backup facilities. Others will replace the relocators without the economic disadvantages of relocation.

Over time, maintenance of the levees will be relaxed as people complain about the costs and forget/ignore the consequences. Even if they are maintained, eventually there will be another, bigger, storm that overcomes the defenses. The degree to which this is again a disaster will depend upon the technology in place then.

In short, things will be improved a little, but not enough.

beignets

[commodoresloat]

Bread soaked in sugar.... with strong coffee .... Mmmmmm.

I'm still planning to head out to NOLA for jazzfest in April; I figure by then the city will be back to its old self, perhaps a little filthier and swampier than usual.

No DSL

[lilmouse]

They have no DSL, no 2.5 pound laptop with a 14" screen, no widescreen plasma TV, no l337 gaming system, no cell phones, no e-mail, no traffic, no air pollution, no lead poisoning, no ...

Hmm...

It's got some plusses. I, however, like my Starcrack.

--LWM

No food/water/shelter either

[lilmouse]

Don't forget that there will be no food and no water - and no shelter - on the side of a highway as the hurricane hits. How much of our population can handle a 12-hour hike while carrying food, water, and a tent??? You're dreaming if you think the average person is 1) equiped to do this and 2) able to handle this. Remember - these are people who can't afford gym memberships.

--LWM

Re:No food/water/shelter either

[jlanthripp]

Hurricane warning is issued 36 hours before the hurricane hits, giving you 36 hours to make a 12 hour walk. At the end of that 12 hour walk is a high school that's used as a hurricane shelter every time a hurricane warning is issued. Said place is above sea level. Put your meds in your pockets and start hoofing it. There is food, water, and shelter at the end of that walk, which should have been reached a full day before the hurricane struck. Re-read my post, and you'll see I described at least 2 official shelters - which are most likely being used right now as distribution centers for food and water. I slept in one of them back in 1985 for Hurricane Elana - it's not too bad, really. Much better than sweating it out in the Superdome with no water, hoping the hoodrats don't knife you for your Nikes.

Who do you think is better off? The people who stayed in New Orleans and haven't had clean water to drink in 2 days or the people who walked to Saint John Parish and are sitting in a gymnasium eating MRE's and drinking bottled water brought in by the National Guard? They are able to bring water there but not to New Orleans because Saint John Parish is not under water.

Anyone who's able-bodied enough to not be on total disability can walk 25 miles on flat ground and barely be winded at the end. I know a grandmother with two artificial hips who walks 10 miles 3 times a week for normal exercise. What kind of shape do you think the "average person" is in? We're not talking about a week-long trek through the Rockies here - 25 miles is nothing on the flat ground of Southeastern Louisiana.

You're the one who's dreaming here. Or you're being purposely obtuse. Or are you on a mental level with the 30-somethings who crowded into the Superdome after ignoring the warnings? Or are you a European who's convinced that all adult Americans are 450-pound whales who can't walk a flight of stairs without a rest break in the middle?

Re:No food/water/shelter either

[lilmouse]

Wow! I haven't gotten that big a flame in a while (not that it's much of a flame, but anyway) Just goes to show I don't get into online disucssions much :-D

Anyone who's able-bodied enough to not be on total disability can walk 25 miles on flat ground and barely be winded at the end.

I'm afraid that really isn't true. My ex-girlfriend, while she could walk on flat ground for a while, would *not* be able to keep it up for 12 hours. And she doesn't walk that fast - it's gonna take her more than 12 hours, and she's not gonna make it in a day. Unless there are shelters 6 hours away, she would end up sleeping on the side of the road somewhere, with no water, no food, etc.

The same goes for a fair number of people I know - none of whom are disabled. And I live in NYC - where it's easier to walk then to drive! We aren't hunter-gatherers anymore. We don't have that kind of physical stamina unless we go to a gym every day or train for marathons. (well, ok, that's going a bit far). Don't exercise for 3 months (or only exercise in free ways - no expensive running shoes, either), and then tell me a twelve mile hike along a crowded freeway is a breeze.

Oh, and BTW, food and water at the end aren't gonna help when you've got heat exhaustion out on the road and haven't eaten in 8 hours. Those last 4 hours are gonna be a bitch, huh?

--LWM

Re:No food/water/shelter either

[jlanthripp]

Hey, I didn't say it would be ridiculously easy - I just said it could be done. Okay, I may have said something about it being nothing on flat ground. That was a bit of an exaggeration, but not much of one.

Take an hour-long break every few hours like I did the time I walked from the French Quarter to La Place. Hell, take a 3-hour break after every 3 hours of walking - you'd still get to the shelters I described 12 hours before the hurricane hit. Carry a couple of bottles of water - a gallon of water only weighs 8 pounds. You'd be surprised how far you can walk when your life may depend on it. And as I said elsewhere in this thread, getting tired beats the hell out of getting dead, which is what has happened to far too many people.

Walking all the way is a worst case scenario anyway. I don't think I've ever met anyone who wouldn't stop and pick up a family on foot trying to flee a category 5 hurricane - I'd definitely stop for a family with kids, and even if it was one shady-looking guy, he could hop in the back of my pickup truck for as far as I was going. My fiancee works as a security guard at a hotel up in Chattanooga, and has spoken with some of the hurricane evacuees staying there. Every one of them is shocked at the number of people who stayed behind, and almost all of them say they would have gladly given a ride to people who had no other way out.

The point I was trying to make is that just about anyone who really wanted out could have gotten out before the storm hit. Sitting around waiting for somebody else to do something for you isn't going to get you very far. To use a worn-out proverb, God helps those who help themselves. Remember, when it's your ass, the buck stops with you.

Even if someone couldn't make it all the way before the storm hit, they could get some distance between themselves and the below-seawater parts of Orleans and Jefferson parishes and find some sort of shelter before the storm hit. To paraphrase senator Zell Miller (D-GA), whom I respect and admire and even voted for despite his being a Democrat - "You can eat half a loaf; with no loaf at all, everybody goes hungry"

Re:No food/water/shelter either

[The Evil Couch]

Hey, I didn't say it would be ridiculously easy - I just said it could be done. Okay, I may have said something about it being nothing on flat ground. That was a bit of an exaggeration, but not much of one.

Nah, you're on the money.

I've been in the US Army infantry for almost 8 years. I've done a LOT of marching. 2 miles an hour, on flat, paved ground, in cold rain, is an easy pace. Even for someone that's not physically active.

Cold rain helps out a hell of a lot. One of the first things to hit you during physical exertion is your body generating too much heat. In cold rain, that factor drops below concern. In the weather they were having before the hurricane hit, they'd pretty much have to run the whole way for heat to be a factor.

Arguements about having to carry food and water for their family are bullshit. Anyone with kids has bookbags they can stuff food and water in. Most women have purses of some sort. Many people have luggage of some sort, too. A lot of times, with wheels. If all that fails, jack a shopping cart.

Food and water weigh a bit, but as long as it's rationed, you can make do with a lot less than you think. Toting enough for a week or so isn't too hard. Especially if you steal a shopping cart.

25 miles (worst case) with 20 pounds of food and water is totally doable for a family. It's not like it's the fucking Baatan death march.

The infirm wouldn't be able to make it, but most people would be fine.

Re:No food/water/shelter either

[jlanthripp]

I just talked on the phone with a friend of mine in La Place. As I expected, the damage in St. Charles and St. John parishes is minimal. His house is unscathed, but there's a lot of tree limbs in his yard that'll take a day or two to clean up. According to him, the worst those parishes got is a few trees that were uprooted by wind and fell on houses, damaging the roofs.

So La Place and Hahnville were valid destinations after all for people evacuating Orleans and Jefferson parishes on foot.

I didn't know what the weather was like before the hurricane hit, so I assumed it was sunny, with 95-degree-plus temperatures, high humidity, and no rain. In short, I assumed the worst case scenario for long-distance walking. And I still came up short trying to find some factor that would prevent an able-bodied person from evacuating on foot.

When police killed 4 looters and wounded a fifth in New Orleans after the looters opened fire on them and on engineers working to repair the levee, my friend in La Place had this to say:

Good riddance. They should have shot the fifth one again to kill his ass so he wouldn't be taking up a hospital bed that could've been given to a fucking human being instead of some goddamned animal.

Re:How about...

[szaz]

Your a daft prick!
Clearly, gas guzzling consumerism DOES have a lot to do with natural disasters. Accelerate the rate of climate change (for better or worse) and World weather becomes more volatile. Increased volatility == reduced predictablity, reduced predictability = more chance people will die (wait a minute - wasn't this predicted, people warned to leave, and they didn't? thats US common sense for ya!)

BTW, are you one of those big fat yanks from Southern America who only fuck women in the ass cos it reminds you of boys?

Damn straight we do!

[lilmouse]

Of course we get jokes! When NYC got hit, we joked about that too. Humour is a much better way to handle absolute bleakness then despair is.

Jokes don't mean we have no feelings, it means we need to laugh.

--LWM

Morbid question

[pclminion]

This question is somewhat morbid, but I can't help but ask it... Could "the terrorists" (or really, anybody evil enough) have damaged the levees to the same extent that the hurricane did? At least with a hurricane, you have days of warning to evacuate. Having the levees explode suddenly would probably drown tens or hundreds of thousands of people. It would be an utter catastrophe.

What sort of security is (now, was) there around the levees? And how feasible would it have been for a relatively small team of people to plant enough explosives to blow open a big enough hole?

I've read that one of the breaches is 200 feet wide. Did it start out smaller and then expand as water rushed through it?

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[WatertonMan]

Actually the government does fund contingency planning for asteroids. I had a friend working on that project at Los Alamos for a while. They were doing damage calculations for different kinds of asteroids, calculating predictions of occurrence, and calculating missile feasibility for dealing with them.

Re:Leave it alone

[marktwen0]

monkeys flying out of our asses insurance

1. Wait for internet businesses to get bubbly again.
2. Notice unserved market segment; i.e., "monkeys flying out of our asses insurance"
3. ?????
4. PROFIT!!

giant paper towels

[juan2074]

Now we have a real test to see which company really makes the best paper towels.

Gee Thanks.

[MachineShedFred]

Kind of predictable that some piece of trash would turn the suffering of thousands of people into a political jab.

Die in a fire.

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[scheming daemons]

Yes... I do.

Pittsburgh.

Though of course, some people would consider the Pirates to be a disaster.

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[Kombat]

Why should we dwell on all the bad things as you ask when instead we can find something to laugh about. Millions of people die terrible, painful, untimely deaths every day around the world. Have you been avoiding laughing your entire life, every day, to honor those who die untimely deaths each day?

You sound like a young person who's not yet experienced the loss of a close loved one. You'll change your tune when your parents die from a long illness, and you truly experience "loss."

Re:Is this a rhetorical question?

[pclminion]

In Louisiana, this is the second year in a row where the summer highs haven't gone over 100F. Human caused global warming is a joke.

Because ONE place isn't experiencing warming? I make a decent income. Therefore, poverty is a myth.

The reason that Katrina reached Category 5 was the mass of abnormally warm water in the Gulf.

Re:Sinking :Look at this from popularmechanics'01

[paulpas]

http://www.internetweek.com/news/170101492

Although it's sad that Red Cross has to issue out warnings for scammers, particulary in email form. It's ludacris that WIndows has impacted, impeded even, the donation process for people in dire need.

Re:ITS OFFTOPIC!!!!!

[Darby]

The topic is about pumping water out of New Orleans, what the fuck does this quote have to do with the current topic?

It has to do with the *fact* that Bush stole money that was earmarked for preventing this exact disaster and used it to fund his personal crusade to make his rich friends richer.
That is entirely on topic because had that money gone where it was supposed to, then quite possibly it could be 8 weeks, or even 7.

Add in the fact that a crapload of the people who are over in Iraq pursuing Bush's imperial ambitions are *The freaking people who are trained to aid in these types of situations*.

Nothing, so let's stop trying to politicize this and try to blame Bush.

Blaming Bush is not politicizing shit.
Unless, that is, you are saying that it is a fundamental Republican characteristic to rob the American people to pay their rich friends and shirk their personal responsibility to protect the American people.

If you are saying that, then fine.

Otherwise, calling somebody on the actions that they chose to take (and in *fact* directly lied and manipulated the country into going along with)
which directly added to the scale of this disaster is called common sense. It's called being honest.
It's called showing integrity.

What it is not in any way imaginable is a political issue.

Your defense of him is entirely political on the other hand. It is clear by now to every honest person what a disaster Bush's presidency has been. Those like you who are too cowardly to admit you were wrong now just declare any *fact* that paints him in a negative light as politicizing the issue.

As long as idiotic party followers like yourself do everything they can to refuse to allow our elected officials to actually face any real criticism for their real mistakes we will be more and more fucked as time goes by.

Thanks for doing your part to fuck the country, asshole!

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[nerotik]

What? Are you serious? Dude, I just happen to live in Pittsburgh too. We've got 3 rivers. They tend to flood sometimes. Hell, last year leftovers from Ivan caused some pretty major damage here - no where near the devasation in New Orleans, but still. No one was telling us to abandon the Golden Triangle then, and no one told us to abandon it in 1996 or 1936 either. Although perhaps we should just abandon the Pirates...

Re:Apes on a rampage

[doug141]

There's no looting after the Japanese have an earthquake, either. I wonder if it's possible for slashdot to discuss the cultural differences that lead to looting without everyone being modded to flamebait.

followup: Fuel panic in Atlanta

[theonetruekeebler]

Every gas station I passed on the way home had a line of cars coming out the driveway. Prices have jumped by at least $1/gallon for all grades. One station wanted $4.399 for regular unleaded and they still had buyers waiting (despite a station half a mile away asking a "mere" $3.599).

Sunday I topped off my motorcycle for $2.59/gallon for midrange. Good thing I get 40mi/gal.

I'm starting to remember that the worst thing about the 1970s wasn't the music.

where was the "loot" aquired?

[gandalf23atwork]

This is the problem with using photos for evidence, or even videos.

Yes, we see what appears to be a white woman (although she could be hispanic) with some food.

What the picture does not show, and what we do not see, but presumably the photographer did, is how she aquired the food. Did she break in to a grocery store and take it? Did it float out of the store and she grabed it as it was floating?

Notice it says "finding from" not "finding at" which does imply that they found the bread and sodas outside the store, not inside.

But maybe that's just my interpretation. Maybe they did go into the grocery store and take the bread and sodas. Mayhap the difference between finding and looting is in what was taken? Food (bread and soda) vs. liquor? We don't know what the young man took, presumably the photographer does, and maybe that's the difference.

Nah, gotta be racism.

RACISM!

btw, check out the NO newspaper for some interesting stories on the looting. Six foot pallets full of liquor, basketball goals, jewelry, DVDs and more are being looted now.

Please, show some class!

[Thud457]

"I was with Strom in SC when Hugo came through. "

I really have no interest in your reminescences about your sordid love-life!

Re:THE REAL STORY. ( What presidents can do)

[zenofjazz]

I'm not exactly a Bush fan, but I wouldn't blame him for the economy either. No matter what a president does or says, he cannot create even a single job in say.. the manufacturing sector. He cannot lower gasoline prices. It's not that there is some magic button he just refuses to push, it's just that people like to think that these things are in someone's control. They aren't. Why does the stock market fluctuate? Occasionally because of something someone says, or one company does, but it's a collective thing overall.

By the same token, and on the other hand, the White House, whether we like the guy in it or not, has no business taking credit for a booming economy either.
You can indeed argue with me over one point or another, and on a small time scale, the president can affect things that happen. But overall, let us remember that congress makes the laws (er including social security and environmental policy), the Federal Reserve sets the Prime Rate, and the market determines prices through supply and demand. Unfortunately, there is no single human being who can make all of these things nice and slap happy for all of us, and there never will be.

Actually, there are things that a president can do, to affect the economy, the price of gas, etc. In fact, he's just done a few of them... Not the least of which is releasing oil/gas from the strategic petroleum reserves. His announced purpose in doing so was to help prevent the increase in oil prices caused by the shutdown of petroleum processors in the gulf coast area. Further, the president, can from the bully pulpit of the White House, set the course for decisions by Congress (who make the laws), the Federal Reserve (who set the interest rates), and Wall Street, who determine where the money actually goes...

Re:Second crack at this

[Overzeetop]

Okay, a non-reactionary take instead:

Of course not, I don't think people should be allowed to die because a natural disaster struck. I know, as an engineer in this field, that these wind loads and flooding can be significantly mitigated with proper design and construction.

I'm dismayed and disappointed that these people had to sie because people who know better (building officials, engineers, code writers, builders) let these people die unnecessarily by their lack of caring. The killed these people because they didn't follow accepted engineering practice - set out in the buidling code - to make buildings safe for the public.

We're not a nation of barbarians - we're a nation of optimists. We don't really believe that winds can be this bad, even when confronted with the data. We want people to be able to buy affordable housing. We want them to get the most (square footage, creature comforts) for their money. We bend the rules, take shortcuts, over-promise. Nobody is the wiser and, hey, we've done it for XX years without any problems, so why change? We believe that our builders are honest, truhful folks who will abide by the code. We think our building officials will catch the few unscrupulous builders, and correct the honest ones who just miss something. We're walking into the abattoir with our eyes closed and a song on our lips.

(Okay, that last line is a bit sensational, but it seemed a good way to sum it up with a little "punch" ;-)

Re:think you are forgetting one thing ....

[jlanthripp]

I didn't forget where they'd stay during the hurricane. See number 5 for 2 public hurricane shelter locations, both of which are within a 12-13 hour walk from New Orleans, assuming a leisurely pace of 2 miles per hour. They're on opposite sides of the river, so it doesn't matter if you're in New Orleans proper or Marrero when the evacuation is sounded - you can still reach one of them without crossing the river.

I slept in one of them during the hurricane warning/evacuation for Elana when I lived in Luling, LA (Elana took a sharp right hand turn and missed us, but my family still "GOT THE FUCK OUT" and went to a shelter when the evacuation was sounded). The other is the high school I attended from 1987 to 1991 when I lived in La Place, LA.

Both shelters are above sea level. Both are protected from Lake Pontchartrain by buffer zones of swampland. Both are well outside the bowl of New Orleans and further protected by the Bonnet Carre Spillway. Both are cinder-block and steel-frame structures with very narrow windows whose glass has that crosshatched wire reinforcement that's supposed to deter burglars.

Depends on the supply.

[Night Goat]

That is because ice is easy to make. In New England in 1997 (or around then), there was an ice storm that knocked out power for a while. Some places were without power for a few weeks. Others, not so bad. Northern VT and southern Quebec got it worst. Generators went up in price like you wouldn't believe. Total price gouging. Legislators made a fuss about it, I don't remember if they were able to do anything though. The supply of generators was finite, unlike ice, which could be easily made. Maybe not directly in the disaster area, but if I understand it correctly, you could find bags of ice pretty easily. So people would pay a lot of money for generators, because they were a necessity.

the right-wings real life Chewbacca Defense

[Scudsucker]

If the right doesn't like a scientific opinion, especially one held by an overwhelming majority of scientists, they try to make it appear that there is a "controversy" surrounding an issue, and demand "balanced coverage" of their position, which Fox happily provides them. Because if there is a controversy, "it does not make sense" to make a policy decision in favor of one position or the other.

This is most obvious when it comes to evolution and global warming. The first attack is usually based around a claim that evloutionary theory can't explain $X, right now, so...intelligent design! Bush said as much recently, stating that we ought to "teach the controversy" in classrooms. I found a nice quote on the subject of ID from a Jason Rosenhouse: The main argument made by ID proponents in this regard is based on the idea of irreducible complexity. Michael Behe coined this term in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box. He defined a system to be irreducibly complex if it consisted of several, well-matched parts each of which was essential for the system to function properly. It was his assertion that such a system could not evolve by gradual accretion, because any intermediate structures would have to be nonfunctional. Since there are plenty of biological systems that fit Behe's definition, the conclusion is that there are complex biological systems whose formation simply can not be attributed to prolonged selection, regardless of any other evidence. If Behe were right, the observation of irreducible complexity would instantly trump whatever circumstantial evidence I could provide in favor of natural selection. But he is not right. Immediately after Behe's book hit the stores, scientists took up the thankless task of stating the obvious: irreducible complexity in the present tells us nothing about functional precursors in the past. (emphasis mine)Dismissals of global warming, which virually all scientists agree is happening and is being accelerated by human activities, generally involve something like "Global warming can't be making $x worse, because we already had bad $x happen decades ago! Therefore, global warming is nonsense!"

Such is the case with Mr. Lowry. We had bad hurricanes in the 50's, therefore global warming has nothing to do with causing more hurricanes and/or making them worse today. And, lets throw in a cheap slam on Al Gore while we're at it. Now, I'm not a meteorologist or a climatologist, so I'm not qualified to write scientific papers on global warming or hurricanes. But neither is Rich Lowry. His main accomplishments seem to be writing the book "Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years" and attacking John Kerry over his statements on war crimes commited by U.S. troops in Vietnam. Now, war crimes are a given in any war, especially when the people you are supposed to protect are also the ones trying to kill you.

But I'm sure Rich was just being tough on another politician, as the press should be. So, I'm eagerly awaiting Rich's book on "Far Worse Legacy: The trillions Bush added to the national debt and losing thousands of American troops over an inexcusable misuse of intelligence". Because if there's one thing right wing pundits hate to do, it's holding their own party to far, far lower standards than their opponents. Otherwise Rich would just be a pathetic partisan hack.

New record gasoline price (even with inflation)

[DaChesserCat]

In a few weeks? Try now!

The record high price for gasoline (set in August, 1981), adjusted for inflation, works out to $3.08 / gallon in today's money. Stations in the Kansas City area BROKE that record, this afternoon. We do not, by any stretch, have the highest prices in the nation.

Many of our refineries are in the Gulf Coast region, and shut down and/or damaged by Hurricane Katrina. There's the choke point in the supply / demand equation. The price of crude has hit records, as well, but Uncle Sam is releasing some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to try to keep that from going too high.

Re:Leave it alone

[multiplexo]

Damn you're ignorant. Have you ever heard of a little thing called "Google Earth". Check it out sometime. There's this cool feature where you can measure the distance between two points, if you can figure out how to do this (which might be a feat for you given your obvious ignorance) you'll see that Downtown Seattle is 57 miles from Mount Rainier. It would have to be a pretty huge eruption to take out Seattle. Compare this with Pompeii, which was five miles from Vesuvius. This isn't like Pompeii, we're not smack up against the base of the volcano, we're smart enough up here in the PNW to not build cities right up against volcanos. The biggest risk from a hypothetical eruption of Mount Rainier comes from the suburbs in South King County and North Pierce County which could get hit by a lahar or a pyroclastic flow going through the valleys that come off of Rainier. But no one worries too much about it because major volcanic eruptions happen much less often than hurricanes do. We don't have "volcano" season up here in the PNW like you southerners have "hurricane" season every year from June through November.

Oh, and if you get a rider your home owner insurance will cover earthquakes, which I do worry about, but again, we don't have an annual "earthquake" season up here in the PNW five months out of every year.

What it comes down to is this: building a city 15 feet below sea level right on the coast in a major hurricane zone is a really, really, really bad idea and doing so will come back to bite you in the ass very, very quickly.

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[DerekLyons]

But why, given a whole ocntinent to play with, build cities below sea level next to huge rivers and oceans?

Because there was (and is) a need to move goods from the American interior to the ocean where they can be shipped across the world.

Same reason to build SF and LA on the San Andreas fault, I suppose.

Pretty much. SF and LA are our gateways to the Orient.

Commerce determines where a city is best built - not safety.

sure, 100 years ago

[Trepidity]

Modern ports are no longer restricted to the very edge of the ocean. This is why Galveston, Texas is no longer the major port in the region, having been replaced by a canal that goes to Houston, Texas, about 30 miles inland (and much safer).

New Orleans, too, is no longer itself a major port: Most of the port facilities are now 20-50 miles upriver. There's no reason the people could's also live 20-50 miles upriver.

Re:Apes on a rampage

[mildgift]

People in cities loot. It's because there's a food shortage -- people tend to keep less food, and shop more often, so you need to get the food. If the owners have left, and there's nobody coming to work, someone will eventually break in to get at the goods.

Re:Is this a rhetorical question?

[fluffy666]

Hmm. We must be reading different science journals. I'll go look it up again if you will.

Somehow, I don't think you are very familiar with scientific research...

In [what's left of] Louisiana, this is the second year in a row where the summer highs haven't gone over 100F. Human caused global warming is a joke.

Now, I know this may be a difficult concept - one that, for instance, you couldn't fit on a car bumper sticker - but climate is a very stastical thing. A couple of years of low temperatures in a given region therefore mean absolutely nothing (as you would know, if you were a scientist); indeed given the complexity of the system some areas will cool.

NO has been living on ...

[Sylven_1969]

Borrowed Time for the last 50 years. The place has been sinking and they've been losing land by the day. The historical and Cultural losses are going to be horrible if they can't re-claim the city from Mother Nature. Yet I ask myself.... Can you really fight Mother Nature? And if so how long will it be after we re-gain a foothold before she strikes again and pushes us back? Maybe it would simply be best to leave the city at rest where it lies and spend the money re-locating the residents to more habitable and safer locales.

The more things change.........

[FLOOBYDUST]

If you want to read about the future of New Orleans..

Check out the past....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mississippi_Flo od_of_1927/

Also see the book "Rising Tide" by John Barry

Dredge Miss Delta?

[GrEp]

Why not keep New Orleans flooded for a while and dredge silt out of the rest of the Missippi delta to put on top of New Orleans? Even a modest raise of a couple of feet would be a big improvement.

Otherwise, New Orleans isn't worth being rebuilt unless they:

(1) Rebuild residental properties inland and provide great public transportation to the coast for industry.

(2) Put a city ordinance in place that no part of a building under sea level can be used as a residental dwelling. FEMA/HUD would probably have to pick up the tab for building theese flood proof appartments, but they would probably save a lot of tax dollars in the long run. Whith housing prices the way they are now the government might even come out ahead if it sells portions of the top floors as nice condos. Also, I'd build three grades of appartment and try to evenly space them throughout each building so it doesn't turn into one of the "projects". Who wouldn't want to live in a building with a grocery store on the first level?

Re:the wise man

[chawly]

Don't know if your daughter had "the original thought". Seems like a good idea to be wise, though. You keep a place to live, even if it is flooded.

9 weeks is an overestimate?

[hcdejong]

After WW2, it took us 4 months to pump out the Wieringermeerpolder [1] (an area 3x the size of New Orleans, and at the same ground level, i.e. 4 m below sea level). So New Orleans might be doable in 6 weeks. It all comes down to available pump capacity, of course.

1: the polder hadn't been flooded because of a storm, but as an act of revenge by the retreating German army.

Don't try to throw him in with the right-wingers

[allism]

The really fun thing about this is, Fred Phelps (head of the Westboro Baptist Church, the guy protesting at soldiers' funerals), is a Democrat. Personally invited to both of Clinton's inaugurations.

Here are some nice photos of him cozied up with Al and Tipper.

I guess he's just doing his own special part to oppose the war.

Don't build your house 12' below sea level

[HackerAce]

I don't mean to be insensitive because I am deeply sorry about the plight of the hundreds of thousands of people affected by the tragedy. On the other hand, those who build their home 12' or more below sea level in a hurricane zone are safe because? If a home is repeatedly flooded out, blown away, or otherwise destroyed by nature should we rebuild in the same area? I see it time and time again. Area destroyed, rebuilt, destroyed again. Who is paying for this? I think you know the answer.

Re:gas prices

[sarcasticmama]

I filled up on Sunday at $2.49. Gas went up on Monday to $2.59. On Wednesday it went up twice! Wednesday morning it was $2.69 and around 11 PM it went to $2.99. This along with heat (natural gas went up 35-40% in the last 1-2 years) over the winter, and I won't be able to afford to do anything other than sit at home. I've already claimed bankruptcy, have no car payment (drive a junker) and no credit card bills. How is the average American worker going to survive?? By stealing gas or food? by keeping their house at 60 degrees over the winter? what about those on fixed incomes like social security? This was the first year in the last 3 years we even got raises (work in a public library in PA...state funding cuts in the last 3 years thanks to our Gov Rendell) and our raise was a whopping 3%. There is no way to even out this grossly unbalanced income to expense ratio. I would love to hear from anyone with real suggestions on how to survive.

Let it flood like all flood plains do

[WillAffleckUW]

and let the silt build up as it always done.

problem solved.

it's like the people who build on the stochastic mud flow plains around Mt. Rainier - when the mountain erupts - which it will, they will be buried under hundreds of feet of burning hot mud.

which is why it's great farmland - but lousy for residential property.

Fixed link

[Big Jason]

Finding

Looting

Re:Where Are All The Countries

[psykocrime]

and have yet to hear from anyone about providing assistance from even our biggest and best allies.

Germany has chimed in with an offer of some unspecified aid / support, FWIW.

satellite pics, before and after

[MMHere]

before, on the 27th

and

after, on the 30th.

Note that these are false color images: clouds are white and light blue, land is green, water is darker blue or blue-grey.

Re:Water City -- FEMA predicted this in 2001

[elwinc]

Check out No One Can Say they Didn't See it Coming by Sidney Blumenthal. Here's an excerpt:

... In early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year (for a total reduction in funding of 44.2 percent since 2001) forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze...

Now I always thought that the two roles of a leader are to articulate a vision for the future (AKA 'hope for the best') and to prepare plans and resources for the proverbial rainy day (AKA 'plan for the worst'). Bush is certainly good at hoping for the best, but this disaster, like Iraq, demonstrates his incompetence at preparing for the worst.

Finally, I totally agree with the parent's plug for John McPhee's The Control of Nature. The 2nd link is to Amazon's excerpt from the book where McPhee discusses the Atchafalaya.

Flooding of New Orleans could have been prevented!

[bkb]

After hurricane Betsy in which a much smaller section of the levy surrounding the city failed recommendations were made to re inforce the levies with interlock steel pilings and increased the pumping capacity to remove the water. Maybe this time this will be done! If Japan can make land build an International Airport on it. Maybe American Engineers can save and rebuild New Orleans. If billions can be spent in Bagdad why not billions in our own backyard. Our very first priority is to take care of the 350,000 plus refugees. Lets not forget about the humanity. My personal love and prayers to all the suffering.These people are Americans.

Re:Why are all the looters black?

[bkb]

Very plain and simple Racially bias media!

GHWB (daddy bush) got us into Somalia

[infonography]

There is nothing like a stupid revisionist on slashdot.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambu sh/etc/cron.html

December 4th. 1992 [Clinton became prez in 1993]
US President George Bush launches Somalia intervention

Deteriorating security prevents the UN mission from delivering food and supplies to the starving Somalis. Relief flights are looted upon landing, food convoys are hijacked and aid workers assaulted. The UN appeals to its members to provide military forces to assist the humanitarian operation.

With only weeks left in his term as president, George Bush responds to the UN request, proposing that US combat troops lead an international UN force to secure the environment for relief operations. On December 5, the UN accepts his offer, and Bush orders 25,000 US troops into Somalia. On December 9th, the first US Marines land on the beach.

Bush assures the American people and troops involved that this is not an open ended commitment; the objective is to quickly provide a secure environment so that food can get through to the starving Somalis, and then the operation will be turned over to the UN peacekeeping forces. He assures the public that he plans for the troops to be home by Clinton's inauguration in January.

This US-led United Task Force (UNITAF) is dubbed "Operation Restore Hope."

Re:"Tourists don't notice the difference"

[brianopp]

you are a disgusting person to make fun of such a tradgic event

Re:"Tourists don't notice the difference"

[QuantumG]

The only disgusting thing here is the fact that they didn't burn New Orleans to the ground when the French surrendered it.

Re:"Tourists don't notice the difference"

[brianopp]

i think you would be sining a different tune if you or your relatives were impacted by this.. if your house was floating down the steet and you had no clean water to drink.. i think you would realize what a sick person you are..

Re:Where Are All The Countries

[Ihlosi]

Within days we had money, planes, etc going to these countries, and have yet to hear from anyone about providing assistance from even our biggest and best allies.

Mr. Bush has waved his hand collectively at all offers and said "Bah !". According to him, aid is not expected, needed or wanted.

Several countries have already offered aid.

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[ricky-road-flats]

Fair points - but to build below sea level?

A similar point is raised in this New Orleanian's story...

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[DerekLyons]

Fair points - but to build below sea level?

It didn't start below sea level. The location of New Orleans was chosen because it was an island in the swampy delta. (Well, a less swampy chunk of a swamp anyhow.) However, two centuries of draining the swamps and pumping out the ground water have sunk it below sea level.

Re:Leave it alone

[LWATCDR]

I suggest you learn about Volcanoes even 50 miles away may not be enough to be safe. How close does Seattle or it's suburbs get to Mount Rainer? BTW unlike getting hit by a Hurricane which may or may not happen Seattle will get hit with a huge earthquake at some time. Get over it. Every city on the planet pretty much could be destroyed by some natural disaster. Hurricanes are not the worst of them. I have been through more than a few of them and have never had to file an insurance claim.

mod parent UP goddammit

[Net_Wakker]

can't believe that hasn't happened yet. great post man, smart and well thought-out.

Survivor

[digitallystoned]

Sounds to be like the next setting of Survivor. the real game

half a state uninhabitable

[nurb432]

If that is the price to pay so we dont have to keep shelling out $ every few years to bail these morons out, then I'm all for it.

Its not like these people didnt have warning.. Sheesh.. Live in bowl long enough and you know its going to flood, eventually.

Cajun culture? They sound damned stupid to me for living there, so again, no great loss.

Call me cold-hearted if you like, but i have ZERO sympathy for this sort of thing. They WERE WARNED for f-ing *generations*..