Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Did anyone else misread that headline and think the networks had started a "Pimp my City" show?
"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.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
SPONGES.
Really, just a massive airdrop of sponges over the city, et voila, your problem, she is solved!
I Live in New Orleans and I was just planning on staying at Taco's house. This membership is good for something, right?
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.
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.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
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
web design experiments
We all know why this is happening to us.
Yep, because terrorists hate our freedom.
Trolling is a art,
Blaming it on Bush is a joke. The levees haven't been properly funded for decades.
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).
Popular Mechanics also did a piece on the disaster that was just waiting to happen in New Orleans. Check it out.
Do not read this sig.
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
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
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.
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.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
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
cheers, ben
Never miss a good chance to shut up -- Will Rogers
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.
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.
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
...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!
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!"
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.
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).
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
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!
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
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.
Life is not for the lazy.
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.
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.
...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?
Please help metamoderate.
Besides,
since when is Venezuela a communist country?
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
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.
This msg is brought to you by the letter 'W'.. for Worthless Wuss
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.
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
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.
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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I find it amazing that a sincere plea for someone else's safety was modded down.
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.
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.
--
make install -not war
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. :-/
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
Your forgetting, this is the U.S. We dont need to CONVINCE libya of anything, we just need to liberate them.
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.
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.
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..
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
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.
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.)
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
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.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- See number 3.
- 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.)
- 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."Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
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.
"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.
Check out these pictures:
h otos_tc_afp/050830194101_mzffh1jl_photo1
9 13/w083049ajpg
"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/p
"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=/050830/1
So when it's a young black man it's called looting, but when it's a white woman it's called 'finding'?
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/
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
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.
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.