Mayor Orders Mandatory Evacuation of New Orleans

Pickens writes "City officials ordered everyone to leave New Orleans beginning Sunday morning — the first mandatory evacuation since Hurricane Katrina flooded the city three years ago — as Hurricane Gustav grew into what the city's mayor called 'the storm of the century' and moved toward the Louisiana coast. 'This is the real deal. This is not a test. For everyone thinking they can ride this storm out, I have news for you: that will be one of the biggest mistakes you can make in your life,' said New Orleans mayor, C. Ray Nagin. Already, hundreds of thousands of residents had begun streaming north from New Orleans and other Gulf Coast areas stretching from the Florida Panhandle to Houston. Bush administration officials took pains not to be caught as flatfooted as they were in Hurricane Katrina, announcing that President Bush had called governors in the region to assure them of assistance and that top federal emergency officials were in the region to guide the response. 'We could see flooding that is worse than what we saw with Katrina,' said Louisiana Governor Jindal." The US Geological Survey will be running a real-time "Map of Hydrologic Impacts" to monitor flood levels, and the National Weather Service has charted direction and wind-speed probabilities. Reader technix4beos points out the need for IRC transcription of FEMA and NOAA feeds.

Comments

Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the niggers drown.

Re:Fuck it

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Ah, you must be a Republican. How charming.

Re:Fuck it

[darkpixel2k]

Ah, you must be a Republican. How charming.

Right--because it's the republicans who are racist.

Hmm...who blocked the schoolhouse steps and had to be removed by the national guard....democrat.

Who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights act? Hmm--that would be Sam Ervin, Albert Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd was a former member of the KKK.

...and guess what. All democrats. Learn your history. Stop being a drone.

Re:Fuck it

[PopeRatzo]

Let the niggers drown.

Thank you, Senator McCain.

Re:Fuck it

[PopeRatzo]

Right--because it's the republicans who are racist.

Since the 1960s, yes, this is true.

Re:Fuck it

[pcolaman]

Racists are racists. There are republican and democrat racists. Let's not discriminate on which racists we choose to hate. Plenty to go around.

Re:Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

Not lately. The Republicans recruited much of the anti-black/Jew contingents from the South ("Southern Strategy") and from other regions (anti-immigrant stance). Sure, that was cheap shot, but not that wide off the mark.

Re:Fuck it

[Daniel Dvorkin]

...and guess what. All democrats. Learn your history. Stop being a drone.

Apparently you think history stopped in 1964. Maybe you should pay attention to what happened since then: pretty much all the Democrats who opposed integration and civil rights legislation had become Republicans by the end of the 1960s. One of the very few exceptions was, yes, Robert Byrd, who has over and over recanted his racist views, apologized for the evil he did, and worked hard for racial equality. For decades now, the KKK crowd has been the property of the Republican Party.

Re:Fuck it

[snl2587]

You do realize that the political parties have shifted, right?

Re:Fuck it

[ravenshrike]

Byrd's a Republican now? Shit, when did he switch parties?

Re:Fuck it

[rukcus]

And immediately right after LBJ (Democrat) worked with Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1963 he told his advisors that he signed the South to Republicans.

Ever since, the South has been voting Republican.

So yes, they are still racist.

Re:Fuck it

[cryptodan]

Let the niggers drown.

Thank you, Senator McCain.

This should be modded down.

Re:Fuck it

[LanMan04]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Democratic_Party

You do realize that while the name stays the same over the decades (and centuries), their views change, right? That was more 40 years ago.

The South is still full of rabid racists and various crazies. They used to vote Democrat, now they vote Republican. You will be known by the company you keep...

Re:Fuck it

[PhreakOfTime]

Who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights act?

Because that is more important than who wrote it ?

Or more important than Mike Mansfield and Hubert Humphrey

But again, the President is the one who introduced the bill, based on promises that were made during the campaign. When the bill got passed, it was after deliberations in both the house and senate, where 20% of the republicans in the house voted against it. Why did you feel it was needed to list 3 Democrats who voted against it, instead of listing the 46 that voted for it?

It has been discussed that the main reason that the Republican party voted 'yea' in such high numbers was purely for political advantage. The perceptions of the constituents at the time, were much more closely tied into how their representative worked with the President, and not against.[1] And my personal opinion, is that the distinction is not between 'D' and 'R', but between 'The South' and the rest of the U.S. Attaching political distrinction will wind up giving you a hodge podge of data points that looks random with both republicans, and democrats, both opposing the Civil Rights Act. When the distinction is made using the geographical area represented, the connection becomes much more relevant. Where were all of your examples from again? I suppose it doesnt help too much if one of your examples 'opposed' the civil rights act because he already believed the constitution guaranteed these rights to ALL. Or that the other one of your examples admitted his opposition to be the 'biggest mistake in his career' when he supported the 1965 Voting Rights Act?

Trying to point out that a few racists were also in the democratic party does not accomplish anything. "But mommy, he did it too" stopped being a valid point of argument for most people when their age rolled over to double digits. Since 100% of the Republican party didnt support the Civil Rights Act either, it would be a trivial exercise to pull out a handful of names with an 'R' next to their names. Neither of those things would change the fact that John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, was the one who brought the legislation to both the house and senate. The Civil Rights Act was introduced by a Democrat, supported by a majority of Republicans, and was pushed through a filibuster(by other southern democrats) with the help of the above linked Democrats that wanted to see the presidents ideals codified into law. It was a GREAT example of what can be accomplished when two political sides work together, and overcome two geographic sides that wont.

Being blatantly partisan helps nobody, except those in politics. Are you in politics? Drone indeed

Re:Fuck it

[houstonbofh]

You will be known by the company you keep...

If you want to judge each group only by the extremists, we are all screwed.

Re:Fuck it

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Byrd's a Republican now? Shit, when did he switch parties?

When his party changed around him, Byrd saw the error of his ways, apologized, and set to work trying to undo the damage he had done. Most of his "Dixiecrat" contemporaries, like Thurmond and Helms, never did ... so they went over to the Republicans, who welcomed them with open arms.

It's simultaneously amusing and sad how Republicans have to reach back decades to find slurs for Democrats, while the current Republican Party presents such a target-rich environment for those Democrats with the guts to take advantage of it.

Re:Fuck it

[darkpixel2k]

Right--because it's the republicans who are racist.

Since the 1960s, yes, this is true.

[citation needed]

Re:Fuck it

[darkpixel2k]

For decades now, the KKK crowd has been the property of the Republican Party.

Care to cite the links between the KKK and the Republican party. Apparently I'm uneducated since I failed to find any.

Re:Fuck it

[darkpixel2k]

You do realize that the political parties have shifted, right?

You do realize that's bullshit, right? I can call myself a democrat and in the same breath say that I'm for drilling domestically, love the war, and support bush--but that doesn't make me a democrat. Same thing goes for people who say they are republican. What matters is your record. In the case of these douchebags, it's their voting record.

Re:Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't care about black people." - George W. Bush

Re:Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

Shine on, ignorance.

Re:Fuck it

[Ex-MislTech]

The South is still full of rabid racists and various crazies.

You don't have to go south to find racists, and nuts.

As someone who has lived in 7 states I have seen them all over.

Re:Fuck it

[darkpixel2k]

And immediately right after LBJ (Democrat) worked with Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1963 he told his advisors that he signed the South to Republicans. Ever since, the South has been voting Republican. So yes, they are still racist.

You have a few facts messed up:
You're telling me that the South suddenly switched from voting Democrat to Republican. It appears (at least to me) that you are trying to link the switch to racism--i.e. that the Republicans were all for slavery, oppressing blacks, etc... and that's why the south started voting for them.

The problem with that is that when it came to a vote, 40% of the House Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, compared with the 80% of Republicans that supported it. Support from Republicans in the Senate was even higher.Republican support in the Senate was even higher.

So you're telling me that after that vote, the south switched to voting republican?

Or maybe you are talking about the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Oops--probably not. Republican support was 82% in the house and 94% in the senate.

Let's not forget a quote from LBJ (democrat): "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

Sounds like another racist Democrat.

Digging around my research notes, I came across this gem--which I'm sorry I failed to write down the attribution: "Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960â(TM)s. In fact, Dirksen was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing."

So once again, which party is the 'racist' party? Even your own examples don't stand up to research and history...

Re:Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

he didnt say there were links, he was just saying that people in the KKK vote republican not democrat

Re:Fuck it

[darkpixel2k]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Democratic_Party

You do realize that while the name stays the same over the decades (and centuries), their views change, right? That was more 40 years ago.

The South is still full of rabid racists and various crazies. They used to vote Democrat, now they vote Republican. You will be known by the company you keep...

You are exactly right that the name stays the same, but the views change. Democrats believe whatever is popular at the moment. When slavery was an issue, they were for slavery...until it was outlawed. Then they started talking about how they were against it all along. Then there was the voting rights act. Against it. Until it passed. Now they're all for it. They'll try to get a black man to believe they were his best friend all along.

As far as the south voting Republican because they are racist--well, that's a bullshit statement. It's like the Slashdot article a while back where Canadian (iirc) police did a study of pedophiles and found they all watched Star Trek. It's not because Star Trek supports or promotes pedophilia. They watch for some other reason. Same with the Republican party. Who cares if a bunch of racists vote Republican. I don't see any Republicans in the house or senate that are trying to pass bills to bring back slavery, or to oppress blacks, or to oppress minorities, etc...so they must be voting for some other non-racist reason. Maybe they all share a common trait of not believing in global warming. Who knows.

Re:Fuck it

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Care to cite the links between the KKK and the Republican party. Apparently I'm uneducated since I failed to find any.

Don't try to pretend I said something I didn't. I said "the KKK crowd" rather than just "the KKK" quite deliberately; there aren't really any links between any political party and the KKK itself any more, because except for a few die-hards the KKK as an organization has been pretty much defunct for decades -- thanks in large part to the efforts of Democratic Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and Democratic Attorneys General Kennedy, Katzenbach, and Clark. By "the KKK crowd" I mean, of course, the sorts of people who would be Klansmen if it were still socially acceptable ... including, again, almost all the ex-Dixiecrats except Byrd, who nearly alone among his contemporaries had the guts not only to admit that he was wrong, but also work to do something about it. Meanwhile, Thurmond's and Helms' spiritual heirs go Republican in overwhelming numbers.

Re:Fuck it

[darkpixel2k]

When the bill got passed, it was after deliberations in both the house and senate, where 20% of the republicans in the house voted against it. Why did you feel it was needed to list 3 Democrats who voted against it, instead of listing the 46 that voted for it?

Why do you feel the need to list the 46 democrats who voted for it, and fail to list the 138 republicans who voted for it. The total was 96 democrats against the bill, and 34 republicans against the bill. Seems to me like 96 democrats is more than 34 republicans.

It seems like the rest of your argument about "But mommy, he did it too" gets shot down when the numbers show Democrats were the largest opponents of the bill.

It was a GREAT example of what can be accomplished when two political sides work together, and overcome two geographic sides that wont.

No argument there.

Those names you pull out with an 'R' next to their names will get as big a denouncement as the rest of them. But in the context of the Voting Rights Act, there are only 34 compared with the 96 with a 'D'.

Regardless of political affiliation though, anyone who votes against the freedom of people should be disparaged.

The Declaration of Independence says "all men are created equal", not "all white men are created equal".

Re:Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-black/Jew contingents?

What do they have against Sammy Davis Jr.?

Re:Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you must be a Republican. How charming.

Re:Fuck it

[darkpixel2k]

Don't try to pretend I said something I didn't. I said "the KKK crowd" rather than just "the KKK" quite deliberately; there aren't really any links between any political party and the KKK itself any more, because except for a few die-hards the KKK as an organization has been pretty much defunct for decades

You said "For decades now, the KKK crowd has been the property of the Republican Party." To me, that sounds like you are saying that the KKK and the ilk that surrounds them either belong to or are controlled by the Republican party. So I asked you to show me links. If I misunderstood what you were saying, then please clarify what you meant by "For decades now, the KKK crowd has been the property of the Republican Party.".

-- thanks in large part to the efforts of Democratic Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and Democratic Attorneys General Kennedy, Katzenbach, and Clark.

Ahh that would be President Johnson who (as a senator) said:
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
And also:
President Truman's civil rights program "is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. . .. I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill."

And Attourney General Robert F. Kennedy who said the following before illegally wiretapping Martin Luther King's phones:
"I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes."

By "the KKK crowd" I mean, of course, the sorts of people who would be Klansmen if it were still socially acceptable ...

I see what you're saying. You're saying that IF the KKK were still around, you know who would be in it, and that it would be most Republicans. That's some great evidence there.

Meanwhile, Thurmond's and Helms' spiritual heirs go Republican in overwhelming numbers.

This sentence has me completely lost. I'm not sure what you are saying. People who once voted republican and voted for Thurmond and Helms continue to vote republican?

I'll agree with you that Thurmond was a douche. His campaigns about 'states rights' were bullshit when you look at the Declaration of Independence. Thurmond can say all he wants that it's up to the states to make decisions about slavery--except one of our founding documents says "...that all men are created equal". Which totally shoots down his argument in my opinion.

Look--I'm not arguing that the republican party is totally perfect and the democrat party is totally racist. My statement was simply that the MAJORITY of the democratic party is racist compared with a small MINORITY of republican party which is racist.

except Byrd, who nearly alone among his contemporaries had the guts not only to admit that he was wrong, but also work to do something about it.

Good for him for standing up and admitting he was wrong and apologising.

Re:Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

I see what you're saying. You're saying that IF the KKK were still around...

Spend a few years in some parts of Indiana. Or Louisiana.

Re:Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares what political party they are members of?

They were conservatives then, and they are conservatives now. Their views haven't changed.

Re:Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you feel the need to list the 46 democrats who voted for it, and fail to list the 138 republicans who voted for it. The total was 96 democrats against the bill, and 34 republicans against the bill. Seems to me like 96 democrats is more than 34 republicans.

Because:

1. Most southerners of both parties voted against the bill.
2. Dems had 90+ reps in the South, vs. Repubs' 10. That's why there were more Dems voting against the bill.

AFTERWARD, many of the Southern Dems swithed over to Repubs, continuing the "proud" tradition. And that's why racism stink lingers on Repubs. But you knew this and insists on keeping on bullshitting.

Those names you pull out with an 'R' next to their names will get as big a denouncement as the rest of them. But in the context of the Voting Rights Act, there are only 34 compared with the 96 with a 'D'.

Regardless of political affiliation though, anyone who votes against the freedom of people should be disparaged.

The Declaration of Independence says "all men are created equal", not "all white men are created equal".

What a nice sentiment. Too bad it doesn't wash the stink away.

Re:Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh that would be President Johnson who (as a senator) said: [...]

If you are using this quote as an argument, you are either stupid or incredibly dishonest. Johnson changed his views quite a bit as time went on. Read this, for example.

Re:Fuck it

[smaddox]

Well, I wasn't alive in 1965, but I fail to see how that has any bearing on which party is more racist NOW.

I can speak from experience about which party is the 'racist' party NOW - in 2008. I know several racist people, and they are all huge GOP supporters. In fact, I don't know any people that I would qualify as racist that support the democratic party.

Re:Fuck it

[NotBornYesterday]

Hmm. Thoughtful, well-written with a balanced perspective, and a coherent argument with facts to back it up. How the hell did this get on /. ?? I wish I had points to give.

Re:Fuck it

[pallmall1]

http://hiphoprepublican.com/2006/09/top-racist-democrat-quotes.html

Yeah, because you don't see these things repeated over and over in the media.

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."
-Senator Joe Biden

Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis."
-Senator Hillary Clinton

Re:Fuck it

[moortak]

As much as i hate the south I must say that they have made major progress on race relations, unlike so many northern cities.

Re:Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

It's odd how 2 minutes research reveals the truth.

"He ran a gas station down in St. Louis No, Mahatma Gandhi was a great leader of the 20th century."

-Senator Hillary Clinton

Re:Fuck it

[Kreplock]

For decades now, the KKK crowd has been the property of the Republican Party.

The Ku Klux Who? The KKK is largely a bogieman, with splinter groups vying for the name. There are still stumblefucks calling themselves the KKK, shaking in their sheets during "demonstrations" hoping they don't get their asses kicked (I've seen and was thoroughly underwhelmed by a public KKK march - if you can call less than 10 dumbasses a march). But the KKK now largely serves as a Hollywood punchline and a red herring diversion from the real racism remaining in our culture.

And the Republican party is not nearly far enough to the right for white nationalist groups. Calling the GOP the white party or the home of the KKK is race baiting on par with calling black repubs Uncle Toms. There's plenty of racism on both sides of the aisle.

Re:Fuck it

[INT_QRK]

Yup. Lots of people who grew up in the 50's and 60's were infected by largely, I'd contend, culturally born racial prejudiced. Some were Democrats, and some were Republicans. I'd ask carriers of the contemporary cultural infection of rabid partisanship to do some research on how the Yea and Nay votes on the 1964 Voting Rights Act actually returned by party. Hint. The Act would not have carried without the heavy percentage of positive Republican votes. (Dems. 153-91 (63%-37%), Repubs. 136-35 (80%-20%), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964. Partisan vitriol and slavish repetition of propaganda used to annoy me. Now it bores me.

Re:Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, you fucking prick. As someone who has traveled all over the continental U.S., I can emphatically say that the north is truly the armpit of this nation. Crumbling, poverty stricken, has-been cities, blighted with the remnants of once great industrialism. They don't call it the rust belt for nothing. The south, in contrast, warts and all, is like paradise compared to the great northern shit hole. That's why population is rising here so much faster than up there. People can't wait to move here where the winters are mild, the summers, though humid, aren't that bad. Our industry is booming, our urban areas are alive and vibrant. It embarasses me to think that foreign travelers visiting the U.S. are more likely to go somewhere like New York or D.C. and let that be their impression of this country. No wonder Europeans talk so badly about Americans. If only they would make Miami or Dallas or Houston or Atlanta their first foray into this land, their opinions would be entirely different. You northern pricks are amusing with your smug self-righteousness. Always trying to look down on other people. You are pathetic. Hopefully, the irony doesn't escape you that you "hate" the south.

Re:Fuck it

[INT_QRK]

Wow. I started to say something, but how does one answer mindless prejudice? --- "The great tragedy of science, a beautiful hypothesis, slain by an ugly fact!" -- Huxley

Re:Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, I don't know any people that I would qualify as racist that support the democratic party.

You must not live in a state with a lot of union workers.

Re:Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck that, New York is arguably the greatest city in the world. The only real competition is London, Paris and Tokyo.

Atlanta... isn't that an airport? I think it has a place where you can buy nuts.

Re:Fuck it

[tuxgeek]

This thread here is one of those subjects that will draw fire regardless of opinion or belief.

That said, your point is completely accurate.

Right--because it's the republicans who are racist.
"Since the 1960s, yes, this is true."

99.9% of individuals in the deep south are severely racist, both Dem & Rep, today as well as in the past. Even the black community has a deep hatred of whites and are racist.

But in the 60's when the Dem party was moving away from the KKK ideology, the southern Dems crossed lines to become Rep. All of these have remained the most evil and dangerous assholes on the planet.

Point & Fact: everybody feels some form of racism for some one else they don't know or understand, myself included.

But I have been trying to overcome this with looking at others (all races) from a candid perspective and have been able to see beauty in most people/races. It is there if you care to look close enough. This is the first step to recovery and becoming human once again.

This world would be a much better place if we all put out an effort to treat each other with honesty, kindness, dignity & respect.

Re:Fuck it

[lysergic.acid]

nationalism and xenophobia tend to be conservative/reactionary traits. so naturally there are more racists amongst the republicans since they're the "more" conservative faction in the bipartisan system. but i agree that there are racists in both parties. but, statistically, you'll find a higher concentration of republicans in the more bigoted/racially homogeneous states.

it's probably not correct to call all republicans racists, or all racists republicans though. just as it's incorrect to equivocate 'democrat' with 'liberal'.

Re:Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, yeah, Metropolitan Atlanta is some kind of airport, encompassing a land area over 1000 square miles with a population of 5 million+ and growing at the rate of 100,000 per year. That's one hell of an airport. The lines at the security gate are a nightmare.

And I've been to New York many times. Yeah, it's fucking huge, with lots of sky scrapers and important people and institutions. It's still a hell hole. 20 million rude, cloistered fucks running around like rats in a cage. You can have it.

Re:Fuck it

[Guppy06]

"So you're telling me that after that vote, the south switched to voting republican?"

Yes. Johnson carried every state but Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and "We Don't Recognize MLK Day" Arizona, which all went to the Party of That Damned Yankee Lincoln. This is the first time in the century that had passed since the formation of the Republican Party that the Deep South ever voted for a Republican candidate. Not 1928, not 1952 or 1956, and not even in 1948, no matter how much they hated Truman.

On the other side of the Mason-Dixon, Goldwater in 1964 was also the first Republican candidate who didn't carry a single New England state. Maine and Vermont were the only states to never vote for FDR.

"Or maybe you are talking about the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Oops--probably not. Republican support was 82% in the house and 94% in the senate."

1965, the 89th House. Compare the colors of the Deep South to its colors in the 88th. I'll save you the trouble of searching: the Deep South had been that lovely shade of blue seen in the 88th all the way back to, well, pretty much the 1st.

"Sounds like another racist Democrat."

Considering that he mentioned Reconstruction, the native Texan sounded like another racist Southerner. And he still went ahead with civil rights legislation because, ultimately, it got him re-elected.

"Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois,"

Today, both Illinois Senators are Democrats. Johnson's home state is now represented by two Republicans.

"So once again, which party is the 'racist' party?"

Easy: the one the South votes for. The party of Truman and Johnson was no longer the party of Jackson and Davis, so Southerners started to vote for the party of Goldwater and Reagan instead. Lincoln Chafee's loss in 2006 marks the first time New England didn't have any Republicans in the Senate in the history of the Republican Party, and I wouldn't hold my breath hoping for Mary Landrieu, the last remaining Democratic Senator from Goldwater country, to hold onto her seat this year.

Now, if you're trying to hide behind the fact that the political makeup of Congress didn't change immediately you're seriously downplaying the power of incumbency and nepotism in federal politics. Members of Congress leave office not by losing elections, but by being either incarcerated or dead; the aforementioned holdouts of Chafee and Landrieu came to power based on who their respective daddies were. Looking at the presidential elections, where voters are presented with two new faces at least every eight years, is a more accurate barometer of political opinions, and 1964 was the first time in over a century that a Republican won even one state in the Deep South.

Re:Fuck it

[palegray.net]

I second that position, having lived in Connecticut for almost two years, now residing in Washington state. I met a *lot* of racists in New England... if anything, they seemed more open about it than those I knew growing up in Georgia. They're alive and well in WA too, spreading the Pacific Northwest brand of bigotry.

(active duty radioman, USN)

Re:Fuck it

[snl2587]

What matters is your record. In the case of these douchebags, it's their voting record.

Voting records apply to people, not parties. A party is a collection of people with similar (read: not necessarily the same) views. And the difference reinforces my point that the parties have shifted. Those that call themselves and are Democrats in this day and age mostly vote against Bush and against the war, etc. Not all, but most. And so if you assess the views of the party based on its members, as is the only way to judge a party, then it holds that the Democratic party has these views.

You do realize that's bullshit, right?

No, actually. Anyone can easily see that the parties have virtually switched places when it comes to social issues.

This holds for the Republicans as well. If you want to know how a party leans, don't look in the history books. Look at its members.

Re:Fuck it

[darkpixel2k]

Well, I wasn't alive in 1965, but I fail to see how that has any bearing on which party is more racist NOW.

I can speak from experience about which party is the 'racist' party NOW - in 2008. I know several racist people, and they are all huge GOP supporters. In fact, I don't know any people that I would qualify as racist that support the democratic party.

Unfortunately you aren't providing any facts. I could just as easily use your 'argument' in my favor without you being able to refute it.

I can speak from experience about which party is racist now. I know 10 democrats, and they are all racist. As a matter of fact, I know 50 Republicans, and none of them qualify as racist.

Ooh--refute that jumble of vague non-verifiable facts and selective statistics.

Re:Fuck it

[pallmall1]

It's odd how 2 minutes research reveals the truth.

Your polished version of the truth. Read a more honest description here.

Stereotyping is alright if you are a Democrat?

Re:Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

Clarification is good, but note that "KKK group" can mean either group inclined to join said group, or people composting said organization. So do try to be less assholish next time such a disagreement occurs, in many cases it's not the readers fault.

Re:Fuck it

[darkpixel2k]

"So once again, which party is the 'racist' party?"

Easy: the one the South votes for.

Since I have been researching this topic since I first posted this morning, this is the dumbest quote I've heard yet.

So you're saying whomever the south votes for is automatically the 'racist' party and since they currently vote republican, the republicans are racist. Great logic.

You've brought up some good information, but I've spent all freakin' day researching this topic and I really need to get some real work done. I'll give your links a read next weekend.

Re:Fuck it

[berashith]

while i agree with most of what you post, I think there is a big gap here. Being from the south, not so "deep", but with an accent, I was amazed when I moved to Boston and realized that I was surrounded by some of the most racist people I had ever met. Saying 99 % of the south is severely racist is wrong, but it would be true that there is a constant racial tension, and the things that like-skinned people say when together in a homogenous group are absurd and offensive. The reason that there is so little black-white racial tension in a place like new hampshire is simple... they dont allow black people in. The common defense that I saw in the north east is that new englanders arent racist because they arent southerners, and it is the southerners who are racist. I was frightened by this...

Re:Fuck it

[darkpixel2k]

If you want to know how a party leans, don't look in the history books. Look at its members.

Agreed. However I still fail to find very many racist Republicans in the part--today, or 60 years ago.

Re:Fuck it

[W.Mandamus]

Well if you want a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke who spoke at the RNC in 1992 when he ran for President as a Republican.

Re:Fuck it

[arkane1234]

Or Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Tennessee... I would continue inserting states but I'm bored and going to do other things.

Re:Fuck it

[Lobster Quadrille]

I hate Hillary as much as the next guy, but if you say you've never told a joke playing on a stereotype, you are full of shit.

It was actually refreshing to see a politician take their PC head out of their ass.

Re:Fuck it

[pallmall1]

but if you say you've never told a joke playing on a stereotype, you are full of shit.

Are you talking about racist stereotypes?

I've never told a joke playing on a stereotype to a political party fund-raiser. Further consider that the party benefiting from the fund raiser has stereotyped the other party as racist, but this contradiction is rarely commented on. So who's full of shit?

Why don't you post some of your stereotype jokes? You know, the non-politically correct ones you find so refreshing and funny.

I'm sure you will select them carefully if you post them in a public forum.

Re:Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

You will be known by the company you keep...

If you want to judge each group only by the extremists, we are all screwed.

I appreciate the sentiment but you're not facing reality. Of course people group and stereotype and generalise others -- it's the only way to understand the world. We don't have time to understand thousands of people in thousands of groups and all of their distinct views so of course we're going to listen to the spokesperson or the loudest voice from the group. If the so-called moderates don't wish to be associated with the extremists then they must speak up and disassociate themselves with them. Moderates do typically support extremists. If moderate Christians do not speak up about their leaders denying condoms in AIDs-ridden Africa then of course that's an indication that their group allows it (even if it's not majority opinion). Some groups would be steadfast against racism, and some wouldn't. Some groups would welcome homosexuals and some groups wouldn't. By all means change the machine from within but be clear on what your group allows and what it's foundations are.

Re:Fuck it

[atriusofbricia]

Given that the entire premise he is putting forward is that everyone in the "South" is racist, yes. Of course, I haven't met any of these people, neither have any of my friends or their friends. I'm sure there are still racists around. I'm sure there are a good number of them. However, based on the experience at hand, the kind of knock them down and keep them down entrenched kinda of racism just doesn't happen that much anymore. Anywhere.

At least not on the personal level. I firmly believe that racism is what both Gun Control and "Affirmative Action" have in common. Along with a number of other related feel good programs.

What this really sounds like is a case of "I'm not from/living in the South so therefore I'm better than you".

Re:Fuck it

[snl2587]

However I still fail to find very many racist Republicans in the part--today, or 60 years ago.

Try looking in the sticks in the south. Everyone I know there is Republican, and appalling racist.

Re:Fuck it

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a true white man. Have some fun--head out to bum-fuck-nowhere-rural-Georgia/Alabama/Mississippi/etc. with a yarmulke on. Then let's talk.

Re:Fuck it

[Ex-MislTech]

New York City, one of the few places on Earth where the cost
of a parking space is more than a Mortgage in the Southwest.

Re:Fuck it

[Lobster Quadrille]

There's a difference between racist stereotypes and racial stereotypes. Believe it or not, people of different cultural backgrounds actually do behave differently, and racial stereotypes are often as not founded in reality.

So Hilary tells a joke about an Indian guy. Big fucking deal. It wasn't a particularly good joke, but it wasn't really derogatory either.

Yes, she should have known better, but this is hardly proof of bigotry. Get over it.

what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's below sea level in one of the most hurricane prone places on earth. Why are rebuilding and living there?

Make it an industrial zone and be done with it. Use the money to permanently relocate the population, not rebuild their soon-to-be blown away homes again.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

because it's their home and this isn't china where the government can forcibly move millions of people at their whim.

Re:what the hell?

[ghostdancer]

No, in China, they don't force you to move; they are just more efficient in convincing you to move.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

anymore

Re:what the hell?

[DerekLyons]

It's below sea level in one of the most hurricane prone places on earth. Why are rebuilding and living there?

Economics - New Orleans is a major port that services nearly 2/3 of the land area of the US. Not to mention the petroleum industry, fishing, cruise ships, etc... etc...
 
 

Make it an industrial zone and be done with it. Use the money to permanently relocate the population

This isn't Sim City where you can just 'declare something an industrial zone' and call it good. Where you have industry, you also have to have (nearby) the people to operate the industry and the people who support them. Which means in turn, the whole infrastructure enchilada - roads, schools, hospitals, etc. etc.

Re:what the hell?

[eebra82]

It's below sea level in one of the most hurricane prone places on earth. Why are rebuilding and living there? Make it an industrial zone and be done with it. Use the money to permanently relocate the population, not rebuild their soon-to-be blown away homes again.

Although New Orleans had its share of tough hurricanes, Katrina was the first big one that turned it into the costliest hurricane in US history. It was also ranked the sixth strongest hurricane to hit the US.

Your comment is insightful, but I'd only argue like this if this troubled area was hit by hurricanes more frequently than it currently is. Forcing people to leave their homes is more than just a material loss. There's history, lost ones and more.

At the same time, you could easily use this argument for places like Tokyo and other areas that are and will be struck by tremendous earthquakes.

Re:what the hell?

[slashflood]

Hint: federal money for large companies to rebuild it every couple of years. War is not the only catastrophic event where "Halliburton & Co." can make big bucks.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the same time, you could easily use this argument for places like Tokyo and other areas that are and will be struck by tremendous earthquakes.

And monsters. Don't forget the monster attacks.

Re:what the hell?

[Wonko the Sane]

We can't force millions of people to move, but they can't force millions of taxpayers in other regions of the country to fund their decision to live there either.

Re:what the hell?

[Zerth]

This isn't Sim City where you can just 'declare something an industrial zone' and call it good.

Apparently you've never heard of a zoning commission. Those morons do it all the time.

Where you have industry, you also have to have (nearby) the people to operate the industry and the people who support them.

Apparently you've never heard of New York or LA. Can't afford to live with an hour of some places.

They should go ahead and rebuild the port and industrial infrastructure, then build some mass transit(light rail, it's cheaper per tile:) to the nearest STABLE and ABOVE SEA LEVEL region and put the residential & commercial there.

That way they just have to repair the tracks and the "stupid end" of the rail system when it floods and nobody drowns.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't force millions of people to move, but they can't force millions of taxpayers in other regions of the country to fund their decision to live there either.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. A million times yes! Let people live there if they want, but there's a huge time consistency problem that creates moral hazard when you give people federal money to build there again.

Re:what the hell?

[mrbah]

This isn't Sim City where you can just 'declare something an industrial zone' and call it good. Where you have industry, you also have to have (nearby) the people to operate the industry and the people who support them. Which means in turn, the whole infrastructure enchilada - roads, schools, hospitals, etc. etc.

So in other words, this is SimCity.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because people are so pretentious that they prefer the illusion of "freedom" to the practical reality that these people are insane/parasitic and will waste billions of dollars every chance they get.

"Freedom" only makes sense in the hands of smart, forward-directed people. The people in New Orleans are none of that. It's like a receptacle tip for all the failures in life so they can make easy money from the tourist trade and do nothing. Darwin would prefer to see a giant marshland with bones poking up among the cypress roots.

There. I said it. Harsh, but realistic. Which the "freedom" bloviation is not.

Re:what the hell?

[jcnnghm]

The government isn't moving anyone, nature is. If they want to stay, that's fine, but not on my dime.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

this isn't china where the government can forcibly move millions of people at their whim.

It's their choice. Either they can move themselves or Mother Nature will take care of it.

I just wish the city and the country hadn't encouraged people to stay and rebuild after the first storm. Think of all the money and effort wasted rebuilding homes for those who wanted to return; we could have spent that effort on rebuilding some other ghetto and not lost it all again a few years later.

Re:what the hell?

[foniksonik]

Hmmm not necessarily. Where I live people commute for an hour and a half to get to work each day. They do so because it is too expensive to do otherwise but regardless of the reason it is an accepted reality that they commute to work.

The same could be done for a port in a flood zone. The "city" could be located in an area that may still be hit by a hurricane but would not be in a flood zone and which is an hour drive away... even better they could set up a light rail line to support the commute for those workers.

There is no reason that the city proper has to be located adjacent to the port.

Re:what the hell?

[Zeinfeld]

Last time, Bush probably did the right thing in staying the hell away from the rescue efforts and not getting in the way. The problem was that the emergency planning was utterly incompetent, not that the President was not on site.

This time they are going to make the opposite mistake. And McCain-Palin (sounds like a comedian) will be going off to campaign in the disaster zone during the disaster.

This is the reason they have a VP, or rather one of the few uses that has been found for a VP. You send the VP off to the disaster zone because they have the same clout and get it fixed capacity as the President in those situations but only require one tenth the amount of secret service etc. entourage. When Bush visited New Orleans to make a PR stop after it was realized he had blundered, they shut down relief for a day.

It is all deeply unserious, its about managing the next news cycle, not getting stuff done. Bush did not need to go to NOLA, he could have demonstrated he was in the loop by holding daily press conferences in the White House.

James T. Kirk made the exact same mistake in Star Trek TOS. When it came to TNG they realized that it somewhat strained credibility to have the captain of the ship lead the away teams each week. That was clearly Riker's job.

And talking about unserious choices, manipulation of the news cycle etc, I wonder which VP would be more competent in a situation like this.

Re:what the hell?

[JTorres176]

I'd love to know how /this/ is insightful. While we're at it, we need to move everyone from California, after all there are way too many earthquakes there. The pacific northwest has way too many volcanoes, that needs to be cleared out as well. The midwest? Tornadoes... Florida to North Carolina, Hurricanes also, all the way down to Texas. Northeast has too many blizzards, southwest has too many heat waves because of the deserts.

If you really want to keep america safe and not have too many people paying too much for too many natural catastrophies... we need to move all the americans to europe where life is perfectly safe.

Re:what the hell?

[schnikies79]

I agree.

The town closest to me (on the Ohio River) was was nearly wiped out during the '97 flood. The government helped them once to move out of the area. The response for those that decided to rebuild in the flood plain? No flood insurance, no disaster insurance and no help if happens again. Private insurance won't touch it. Good luck.

Don't forcefully stop people from making dumb decisions, but don't subsidize it either.

Re:what the hell?

[jlarocco]

Oh yes they can. They federal money to rebuild after Hurricane Flossy, Hurricane Betsy, and Hurricane Katrina and they'll get more money this time.

Any politician with the common sense to say "Hey, rebuilding here again is a bad idea" would be demonized as wanting to move people from their homes and probably called a racist.

Re:what the hell?

[oh_bugger]

I believe the Kirk situation was actually covered in an episode of TOS where a computer explains why the captain shouldn't be leaving on the away mission. They got rid of the computer though

Re:what the hell?

[sleigher]

In addition to that, New Orleans is the birth place of one of the few cultural items that we as Americans have given to the world. If we cared at all about America and the world we would spend whatever it takes to protect New Orleans and Mississippi, to ensure it is preserved for future generations to see.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Economics - New Orleans is a major port that services nearly 2/3 of the land area of the US. Not to mention the petroleum industry, fishing, cruise ships, etc... etc...

You forgot the most important, the Girls Gone Wild! industry at Mardi Gras.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

because it's their home and this isn't china where the government can forcibly move millions of people at their whim.

As someone who has some "American Indian" ancestry, I am here to tell you - yes, the government can.

Re:what the hell?

[Xcott Craver]

Why are rebuilding and living there?

Because half of the country is a potential disaster area.

It's bad enough when your town gets taken out by a tornado/wildfire/flash flood---then some folks on the Internet have to call you an idiot for choosing to live in the midwest/west coast/Mississippi river valley.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, just let idiots rebuild using EVERYONES money, and then have them again use EVERYONES money to bail them out. Because unlike China, here in America, government forcibly allocates my money to give dumbasses freedom to be dumbasses. Its all just misdirection anyway, so the rich get fat off of claims, and the middle-poor blindly pay into them. Keep rebuilding. Dance puppets, dance.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately. Katrina was the FIFTH fucking time in known history where that area has been demolished. I can understand it being people's homes. If they want to live they let them pay for it. The government should not be spending a single dime in helping anyone who wants to live in a disaster area. I believe the same thing for the people living near the Mississippi who have been flooded out of their homes earlier this year. This is not the first time this has happened. I understand wanting to FARM there, but that's all that should be allowed to be there with the only buildings being allowed to be there those needed by farming.

Re:what the hell?

[PunkOfLinux]

New Orleans isn't the home of jazz anymore; it's just a ghetto now. Most of the great places where jazz got its start are gone now.

Re:what the hell?

[nurb432]

Unfortunately, the government can just take the land and force them all to move.

This is 2008, the peoples rights are only there if it serves the government's purposes.

Re:what the hell?

[aplusjimages]

Same reason people like to live at the beaches and tax payers have to keep paying to have sand dumped at the beaches so the ocean doesn't wash away their home.

Re:what the hell?

[DerekLyons]

Where you have industry, you also have to have (nearby) the people to operate the industry and the people who support them.

Apparently you've never heard of New York or LA. Can't afford to live with an hour of some places.

And yet, people do live within an hour 'some places'. And right in the heart of 'some places'. Or, in other words, why are you comparing chalk to cheese?
 
 

They should go ahead and rebuild the port and industrial infrastructure, then build some mass transit(light rail, it's cheaper per tile:) to the nearest STABLE and ABOVE SEA LEVEL region and put the residential & commercial there.

Stable and above sea level? There isn't such a place in the entire US.

Re:what the hell?

[PunkOfLinux]

The issue here is that most of New Orleans was destroyed AFTER A FLOOD. Not 'a few buildings'. What you're talking about is pre-emptive action against an earthquake. I honestly have no problem letting them live there right now; if an earthquake were to come and destroy the whole thing, and they wanted my tax dollars to rebuild their lost city, I'd tell them to shut the fuck up and move.

Re:what the hell?

[Hatta]

America isn't going to function without a port at New Orleans. Incredible amounts of produce from the breadbasket of the country flow through that port. You can't run that port without a city to support it. New Orleans is important to the economy of the entire country.

Re:what the hell?

[stinerman]

Seeing as New Orleans is the largest port in the world by gross tonnage, I don't think it'd be too easy to just shut down.

Re:what the hell?

[aplusjimages]

"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."

Re:what the hell?

[sphealey]

=== Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. A million times yes! Let people live there if they want, but there's a huge time consistency problem that creates moral hazard when you give people federal money to build there again. ===

The Microsoft campus is built on solidified mud that flowed down during the last big eruption of Mount Rainer. In fact the entire Seattle/Tacoma area is at risk from such an eruption including Microsoft, the PacNorth software industry, and Boeing. Where do you suggest we move Seattle?

And while every local area should have good emergency planning in place, and Louisiana's prior to Katrina was not and did not, it was always my belief that in a true disaster situation the federal government, backed by the goodwill of the entire nation, should and would step in to help to the limits of human capability. Turned out, not so much.

sPh

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It was also ranked the sixth strongest hurricane to hit the US. "

One thing to remember was that New Orleans likely only had Category 2 winds, so while Katrina was strong off-shore, it did not remain so. You should read the NHC report for more details. Highlights from the report:
"The strongest winds corresponding to that [Category 3] intensity were likely present only over water to the east of the eye." This means that the category 3 winds were well east of New Orleans.

"The sustained winds over all of metropolitan New Orleans and Lake Pontchartrain likely remained weaker than Category 3 strength." New Orleans was experiencing a Category 2 hurricane. A majority of the damage was due to flooding, not winds. Flooding was caused by political failures in terms of 40-50 years of neglect and political games.

Anyone who says a storm is "only" a category 2 (or whatever) doesn't understand the damage that can occur even from "only" a category 2 storm. New Orleans is something of a special case given its elevation.

(NHC report: http://hurricane.com/hurricanes/hurricane-katrina/hurricane-katrina.php).
(see also:http://hurricane.com/hurricanes/hurricane-katrina/hurricane-katrina-2005.php)

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't making it an industrial zone still be a horrible idea since instead of homes being flooded we'll just have factories and office building with hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, in equipment being flooded? In the end it may be more costly to take care of all the businesses. I don't think there is any use for land that is below sea level and sitting next to the Gulf of Mexico.

Re:what the hell?

[Drakonik]

But does the northwest get hit by several volcanic eruptions a year that cause billions and billions in damages, that are repaired with taxpayers' money? Do the earthquakes regularly cause damage on the scale of Katrina or other hurrcanes?

Yeah, everywhere is dangerous. But New Orleans is to hurricanes is what building your house in an active volcano's caldera is to a volcano. Everywhere is risky, but New Orleans citizens are building below sea-level NEXT TO THE FUCKING OCEAN.

Re:what the hell?

[solune]

Nah, this is america where They rule you have to leave your home; Understand, though, economics trumps cleverness.

Re:what the hell?

[cowscows]

More than half of New Orleans is actually above sea level. It's not above possible storm surge levels, but neither are the majority of the coast line in the rest of louisiana, texas, mississippi, alabama, or a very large portion of florida. While Louisiana is certainly hurricane prone, it's no more so than anywhere else along the gulf.

There are many steps that could be taken to help protect New Orleans and other at risk places, and to help minimize the damage that storms are able to cause. The federal government had agreed to undertake some of those steps, and in exchange, Louisiana allowed the shipping industry and the oil industry to basically destroy its coastline. Not to mention how Louisiana has to deal with the overflow from every other city and town up the Mississippi river. The huge line of levees that all those northern states have built increase the speed of the river to the point where there's no more sediment build-up to replenish the Louisiana wetlands. Incredible amounts of fertilizer runoff from farms flows into the gulf, creating giant dead-zones that have had drastic effects on Louisiana's seafood industry. And to top it all off, New Orleans citizens have to drink water from that same river that dozens of other cities have already dumped their waste water into.

New Orleans and Louisiana has been getting crapped on by a huge swath of the country for decades. In return for those sacrifices, some decent flood walls isn't too much to ask. The wind and rain of Katrina destroyed very little of New Orleans. The inability of the Army Corps of Engineers to live up to their side of the deal is what caused the flooding. The citizens of New Orleans don't want to use tax payers' money to rebuild after every storm. They want the flood protection that they were promised. Give the city that, and it'll take care of itself.

Re:what the hell?

[Zeinfeld]

I believe the Kirk situation was actually covered in an episode of TOS where a computer explains why the captain shouldn't be leaving on the away mission. They got rid of the computer though

Now what does that remind you of?

Oh yes "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"

Re:what the hell?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

So make it an industrial zone. Nothing residential. Move "New Orleans" above sea-level and have it be the new city where everyone can live, steal, get drunk, and go around raping white girls who are there to 'party.'

Re:what the hell?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

"This is 2008, the peoples rights are only there if it serves the government's purposes."

In this case, forcing everyone to move would be to save thousands of lives and billions of tax dollars.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then, don't bother to pump out the water. Just turn the city into Venice.

Re:what the hell?

[snoogans126]

At the same time, you could easily use this argument for places like Tokyo and other areas that are and will be struck by tremendous earthquakes.

I get real tired of hearing the earthquake or {Insert misc. disaster here} argument. It's generally rather large areas that are vulnerable to earthquakes, the same can be said for tornadoes and hurricanes. The difference is that while there is a wide coastal area that is vulnerable to destruction from hurricanes, New Orleans is the one that's frigging underwater.

Re:what the hell?

[PopeRatzo]

This is the reason they have a VP, or rather one of the few uses that has been found for a VP.

Do you think Miss Palin is aware that she's not supposed to shoot the residents of New Orleans from a helicopter?

Reading her bio, I wonder if she's ever met a black person.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Economics - New Orleans is a major port that services nearly 2/3 of the land area of the US. Not to mention the petroleum industry, fishing, cruise ships, etc... etc...

...and of course there's no reason it can't be a little further north.

Re:what the hell?

[pcolaman]

Actually it has been reported that they (McCain and Palin) are going to MEMA (Mississippi Emergency Management Agency) but will not go to LA, for primarily the problem you suggest. McCain is smart enough to know that if they go there it'll be a circus and will just be a distraction for the relief effort. And Bush probably won't go directly to LA either for the same reason.

Re:what the hell?

[PopeRatzo]

New Orleans isn't the home of jazz anymore; it's just a ghetto now. Most of the great places where jazz got its start are gone now.

Just because you spent your weekend trip to New Orleans puking in a gutter in the French Quarter instead of listening to jazz, I wouldn't assume that means it's "just a ghetto" and no longer the home of jazz. Every year, at the N.O. Jazz and Heritage Festival, hundreds of internationally renowned local acts play some of the most innovative and exciting jazz you'll ever hear.

And, as far as "Most of the great places where jazz got its start" being gone, the last time I checked, Chicago, Kansas City, Newport, Memphis and New York are still there. And, if you're so inclined, you can still hear the real thing.

In fact, here in Chicago, at 8:30pm tonight I'm going to check out some guy named "Ornette Coleman" when he headlines at the Jazz Festival, under the stars in Grant Park.

Re:what the hell?

[maxume]

There are many astonishing things about that statement. This is one of them:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020917-7.html

Re:what the hell?

[PunkOfLinux]

Way to totally misinterpret. I meant most of the places *in New Orleans* where jazz got its start.

Re:what the hell?

[stinerman]

Move? Like put a bunch of skyscrapers and multi-story houses on slats and physically move them? Or rebuild the entire city in a safer area?

And where is this money for brand new everything coming from? The people in the Lower 9th Ward don't exactly have the money for new condos in the new "riverview" district.

Re:what the hell?

[xaxa]

Indeed, there are plenty of cities in Europe that used to have a port accessible up a river, which has now closed and been replaced be ports directly on the sea that can accommodate large ships. The best example is probably London -- the Thames wasn't big enough for modern ships, so the shipping industry essentially moved to the south coast (Felixtowe, Southampton etc). Unfortunately, this left a huge area of central-ish London (the East End) with no industry, since most people there were employed at the docks. Now, it's been redeveloped and the Docklands is London's second financial district.

Re:what the hell?

[Wonko the Sane]

If that much trade passes through the port, then tax those goods to fund the necessary infrastructure.

Let the true cost of doing buisiness through the port be reflected in the cost of the products so that the free market can do its job.

Re:what the hell?

[Mistshadow2k4]

Exactly. By that logic, we should abandon most of California and the eastern coast, not to mention a huge swath of Texas, and the towns in what's called "Tornado Alley". That's a hell of a lot the entire US when you add it up. And I'm only talking the areas as disaster-prone as New Orleans, not those that occasionally get hit.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Nagin and the rest of the Nawlins jungle monkeys should be permanently relocated back to their homeland: Africa.

Re:what the hell?

[pcolaman]

The reason we rebuilt, as has been rehashed a number of times, is that it is one of the most important ports in our nation. On top of this, we have a considerable number of oil platforms off the coast of LA and TX, and about 5% or so of our natural gas is transported through lower Louisiana. Where are the people who work in these areas supposed to live, 100 miles away?

Re:what the hell?

[Yvanhoe]

At the same time, you could easily use this argument for places like Tokyo and other areas that are and will be struck by tremendous earthquakes.

The difference is that Tokyo is built to withstand earthquakes and do so regularly (like most Japanese towns) If people have to live in this area, make it so that they don't have to rebuild all the town every 3 years. Make it underground, have constructions laws that are more stringent, elevate the whole region. That's costly but that's what federal money is made for.

Re:what the hell?

[pcolaman]

New York and LA are bastardizations of civilization when it comes to cost of living. The living cost in those cities is fucking ridiculous. You wanna know what me and my wife pay for a 2 bedroom, 2 bath townhouse? About $950 a month after taxes. That's a mortgage, not a rent payment. The same type of place in LA would probably cost $3000 a month, easy. I hate to tell you this, but living costs in New York or LA are not indicative of most of the rest of the country.

Re:what the hell?

[Teun]

rebuild their soon-to-be blown away homes again.

You hit the nail on the head and didn't realise it.

I was just watching some documentary on CNN about good architects helping with open source(!) designs for new homes in this area.

But all they showed were wood frame constructions...

Weird, even in places like Bangladesh they know that a concrete building is so much better in a hurricane.

When working in Louisiana/ Southern Texas I asked around and was told concrete for the main structure would only be about 10% more expensive.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

you cant rape the willing

Re:what the hell?

[pcolaman]

This isn't Sim City where you can just 'declare something an industrial zone' and call it good.

You must have sucked at Sim City if you didn't place reasonable levels of Commercial and Residential zones not too far away from Industrial zones. And Hospitals, Police, etc.

Re:what the hell?

[ravenshrike]

It's the fed. The fed does NOTHING quickly. Why this is so fucking hard to understand amazes me. The vast majority of blame for the Katrina aftermath must fall upon Nagin and Blanco. Unless you want to give Bush the power to order the national guard into other states as he sees fit. But I would think that would twig your tin-foil hat receptors.

Re:what the hell?

[Jedi Alec]

Hey, it's not like there's other places in the world where people live quite safely below sea level. Of course that does involve these big lumps of sand and rocks to keep the water out, and those take taxes(hiss, spit!) to build.

Re:what the hell?

[dashslotter]

This is all wrong, and entirely inconceivable. What they need to do is to lower the ocean around the city.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

it was always my belief that in a true disaster situation the federal government, backed by the goodwill of the entire nation, should and would step in to help to the limits of human capability. Turned out, not so much.

Wow, somebody missed the part of the story that said the entire country mobilized to help out Katrina victims, including the federal government (who were far more competent and charitable than the local and state governments, which includes ALL TAX PAYERS IN THE UNITED STATES).

Re:what the hell?

[canix]

Not even close to being the largest port: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_busiest_port_by_cargo_tonnage

Re:what the hell?

[TwistedSymmetry]

Exactly. The best investment of money at this point would be to build some proper levees. Hell, much of Holland is beneath sea level, but they have proper levees.

Re:what the hell?

[DerekLyons]

That's precisely my point, which becomes obvious when you read the whole post.

Re:what the hell?

[sleigher]

The nearest STABLE and ABOVE SEA LEVEL region is called Arkansas.......

So I am being sarcastic, but literally, the highest point in Louisiana is 535 feet. Mt. Driskill.

Re:what the hell?

[TwistedSymmetry]

Though if global warming leads to more hurricanes and higher sea levels, that could make some places economically uninhabitable (arguably, many already are).

Re:what the hell?

[MtViewGuy]

Here's the problems with that idea:

1) Where are you going to locate the NEW city? Expand Baton Rouge?

2) There is so much shipping terminal infrastructure located in New Orleans it would be prohibitively expensive to move it all. This is especially critical because a huge fraction of the grain output of the USA goes out through New Orleans.

A better solution is to completely rebuild the city along these lines:

1) Put in an extensive system of water barriers inside the city so the flooding don't spread over a wide area.

2) Install the type of super capacity water drainage sytem--essentially a network of gigantic underground water canals--of the type that the city of Tokyo installed some years ago.

Re:what the hell?

[pcolaman]

You are correct. All I heard was sucked, Sim City, and good, and I was up in arms. That game sucked for all of the hours of my life it stole.

Re:what the hell?

[MtViewGuy]

Sounds like a good idea in theory, but we're still essentially talking about building a NEW residential city to support the remaining port and industrial infrastructure. It would be exorbitantly expensive to pull off, to say the least!

Re:what the hell?

[Legion_SB]

Apparently you've never heard of New York or LA. Can't afford to live with an hour of some places.

That would be the New York and Los Angeles with populations 8.2 million and 3.8 million, respectively, right?

Even with ridiculous cost of living levels, there's blue collar workers living everywhere.

Take Salinas, CA. Median house value of over $500,000, and it's a town filled with spinach-picking farm workers. Whether it's old houses passed through families or something else, when people are needed to work an area, the housing issue gets figured out.

If you think every janitor in LA and NYC commutes an hour to work, then you're awfully silly in the head, and we can't be friends.

Re:what the hell?

[stinerman]

Beg your pardon.

Port system. Serves me right for thinking "port system" and "port" are the same thing.

The paragraph is pretty vague and confusing. Time to add a {{fact}} to that one. Thanks for the info.

Re:what the hell?

[Zerth]

Where you have industry, you also have to have (nearby) the people to operate the industry and the people who support them.

Apparently you've never heard of New York or LA. Can't afford to live with an hour of some places.

And yet, people do live within an hour 'some places'. And right in the heart of 'some places'. Or, in other words, why are you comparing chalk to cheese?

Yes, and those that live in the heart paid half a million for an apartment and probably have a second home someplace a little more sane. If they show up at city hall asking for disaster money, very few will have issue with telling them to shove off.

 

They should go ahead and rebuild the port and industrial infrastructure, then build some mass transit(light rail, it's cheaper per tile:) to the nearest STABLE and ABOVE SEA LEVEL region and put the residential & commercial there.

Stable and above sea level? There isn't such a place in the entire US.

No place stable and above sea level? IHBT. Unless you're speaking on geological terms, there's a very large granite mass my house sits on that put a lie to that.

But, if you insist, allow me to qualify:

"more stable than a pile of silt that is subsiding with a river held to banks that would've changed years ago by insufficient levees and at least 15 minutes inland"

Better?

Re:what the hell?

[QuasiEvil]

Yes, but arguably the risk of Rainer blowing up is much, much lower than New Orleans getting wiped out. Rainer has blown up once in the last two centuries. The Gulf Coast gets whacked by a serious hurricane every couple of years.

I agree - seriously, if we have to pay to rebuild NO every couple of years, we really should just re-engineer its flood production systems to be impenetrable. Of course then they'll be so damned ugly that nobody will want to live there, so...

Re:what the hell?

[glindsey]

Yeah, we really ought to do the same thing with Los Angeles, too. I mean, it's one of the most earthquake-prone places on earth. Why are people rebuilding and living there?

Re:what the hell?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

It's below sea level in one of the most hurricane prone places on earth. Why are rebuilding and living there?

I wonder why people in California are allowed to rebuild their homes on hilltops only to have them slide off again? Or why are they allowed to rebuild their homes only to have them burn down during the next fire season?...

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody mod this guy +1 funny.

Unless he's serious and is ignoring the cost of rebuilding the city every time it gets washed out to sea.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where you have industry, you also have to have (nearby) the people to operate the industry and the people who support them.

Apparently you've never heard of New York or LA. Can't afford to live with an hour of some places.

Apparently you've never heard of the Census: 8.2M in New York, 3.8M in Los Angles. People can live there.

As for Los Angeles, much of the industry has moved inland towards San Bernardino where it is less expensive (for all).

Los Angeles and New York are largely commercial centers, and most cities have a mix of both (New Orleans included).

Re:what the hell?

[ILuvRamen]

Basically all animals have a response where when they go somewhere and something awful happens to them, they don't go back. Apparently NO residents don't have that. The only reason they keep coming back is because the gov is paying for their new house. I say cut all funding until those morons figure it out that it's a bad place to live.

Re:what the hell?

[glindsey]

How is this any different from multiple enormous Californian cities lying directly on top of multiple active fault lines?

Re:what the hell?

[nurb432]

Saving tax dollars wouldn't serve the governments purpose. they LIKE spending it like its water.

And if there are more ravaged homes and ruined lives due to inaction, they get to spend even more.

Re:what the hell?

[nurb432]

"your town has been condemned"

Problem solved. We have 'due process' for evicting entire towns. Its happened before. It can happen again.

May not be practical, but don't say it *cant* happen. And at a 'whim' is sort of relative, you cant fight it when they come to bulldoze your house.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

apparently you didnt know it pays enough to make the commute to LA or NY, New Orleans is at the poverty line asshole

Re:what the hell?

[ciej]

I vote we don't make them move we just don't rebuild the levees with tax dollars. If some private corporations or individuals want to fork over the money to keep rebuilding it then thats fine by me.

Re:what the hell?

[joocemann]

It's below sea level in one of the most hurricane prone places on earth. Why are rebuilding and living there?

Make it an industrial zone and be done with it. Use the money to permanently relocate the population, not rebuild their soon-to-be blown away homes again.

But my grand daddy was dumb enough to build here! Alls we needs is a new big levy. Big new levy. 3 words.. New. Big. Levy.

Den we rebuilds it! It go'n work this time 'round cuz I know God is watchin over us.
----------
Sarcasm off
-----------

It would be foolish to rebuild New Orleans. Nostalgia prevails, unfortunately.

Re:what the hell?

[toxic666]

And the engineering of the New Orleans area is part of its problem. There are various types of subsidence, ranging from ground loading of unconsolidated surficial sediments, lack of flooding and replenishment of surface sediments and ground water withdrawal.

Not only was it a bad choice of places to live, building it up has exacerbated its sinking.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of liberals and democrats. Everything has become soft and precious when it comes to peoples feelings and the issue of race and politics. One of the dirtiest corrupt places in the country with the highest level of unemployment will always continue to be rebuilt. The people of Galveston moved inland when they were hit by the storm in 1901. That is the only reason Houston is as big as it is. 50-100 years ago we would not rebuild, and we should not now. I live in south Florida and have food and supplies ready just in case of a storm but most importantly I have INSURANCE, flood, windstorm everything. People in New Orleans that don't have insurance or are on government assistance should not get shit. Move them to Atlanta for a job not a hotel. I have never seen a fast food restaurant not hiring (ANYWHERE).

Re:what the hell?

[theralfinator]

That's costly but that's what federal money is made for.

Isn't that what state or municipal money is made for? Federal money isn't made so that the entire country can pay for "fixing up" one city.

Re:what the hell?

[snoogans126]

Those fault lines are fairly large areas (the San Andreas covers a distance that's most of the state of California), New Orleans is a comparatively small area. Plus, technology allows for modern building techniques allow for buildings to be built that are reasonably resistant to earthquake damage, and typically building codes require it. After an earthquake, usually the buildings that suffer the most damage are the ones that are old enough to predate modern building codes, and are replaced with buildings that are built to modern standards. On the other hand, after Katrina, the buildings that have been rebuilt are still underwater, and at this point are likely more vulnerable to damage than their predecessors, since no major improvements have been made to a levy system that was heavily damaged.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason they keep coming back is because the gov is paying for their new house.

[citation needed]

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did 1,000 people die because of the soil in Seattle? Did the US tax payers spend 90,000,000,000.00 to rebuild Seattle? No, so do not compare New Orleans with Seattle. New Orleans is the armpit of America. After Gustav we should not rebuild, but I am sure Barack Hussein Obama will be there the day after the storm with a speech.

Re:what the hell?

[spire3661]

SO instead we are left to foot the ir stupidity of living on the sea, below sea level.

Re:what the hell?

[Migraineman]

... the federal government, backed by the goodwill of the entire nation, should and would step in to help to the limits of human capability.

And therein lies the problem - entitlement. Folks seem to think that they're entitled to live wherever they want, without repercussions. If something bad happens, the Fed will bail them out, right?

Folks seem to have lost an ability to take responsibility for their actions. If you choose to live in an earthquake/flood/volcano zone, fine. I respect your freedom to choose. However, don't come complaining that something bad happened to you, expecting me to pay for your decisions. I think the country's goodwill response to folks displaced by Katrina was phenomenal. I'm completely offended by the folks who bitched about it being "not good enough."

Re:what the hell?

[Tassach]

When is the last time Holland got hit by a hurricane?

Re:what the hell?

[witherstaff]

Oh you mean McCain won't be having a birthday cake delivered by President Bush when a hurricane hits New Orleans this time around?

Glad to know he cares when votes are at stake.

Re:what the hell?

[sphealey]

> It's the fed. The fed does NOTHING quickly.
> Why this is so fucking hard to understand amazes me.

"The fed" - that is, your federal government - has agencies that are specifically designed to work quickly and effectively and do so. Unless they are deliberately staffed with managers whose assignment is to destroy them and prove that they "don't work" - which is exactly how FEMA was staffed and tasked when Katrina hit. FEMA worked quite effectively in previous disaster situations. Heck of a job.

sPh

Re:what the hell?

[rubycodez]

there can be a port without a bunch of impoverished people living there below sea level

Re:what the hell?

[sphealey]

> And therein lies the problem - entitlement. Folks seem to think
> that they're entitled to live wherever they want, without
> repercussions. If something bad happens, the Fed will
> bail them out, right?
>
> Folks seem to have lost an ability to take responsibility for
> their actions.

And here I thought we had this thing called a "nation" which embodied some elements of teamwork and shared pain/shared gain. Certainly when elements of our society decide it is time for a war they emphasize something they call "sacrifice" and "service".

> If you choose to live in an earthquake/flood/volcano zone,
> fine.

Of the major population and economic centers of the United States the only one that I can think of offhand that is not immediately vulnerable to a devastating natural disaster is Chicago. But that is only because it is so large even a 500-year tornado outbreak wouldn't do excessive damage on a percentage basis. Hmmm - forgot about devastating ice storm - that is possible in Chicago. Scratch that. So pray tell where this disaster-potential-free zone is located.

sPh

Re:what the hell?

[pjt33]

A quick Google search suggests last year. But it also suggests that high winds have caused major loss of life in the Netherlands due to dykes being breached.

Re:what the hell?

[lastchance_000]

due to dykes being breached.

I won't go there. I won't go there. I won't go there.

Re:what the hell?

[HornWumpus]

Bullshit.

FEMA has been a clusterfuck sense day-one (or at least the '80s which is the first data point I have). Talk to any former FEMA employee or contractor. FEMA has never been able to find its ass in the dark. FEMA shadow government tinfoil hatters are flat out funny.

Katrina's emergency response from the feds was very similar to previous storms. What changed was the magnitude of the disaster AND the gross ineptitude of local authorities and _citizens_.

There is a cost of learned helplessness beyond dependence on the dole. When it came time for them to do for themselves they fell flat of their faces (as will most).

Re:what the hell?

[Ex-MislTech]

Well in most of the US there are building codes.

In most of the US these codes keep you from building
in the 100 year flood plain.

The destroyed areas of New Orleans that are below
the level of the lake and the river need to be
rezoned to industrial, or made a state park
gradually over time.

If they want to rebuild it all that is fine,
just rebuild it all in land above sea level
on ground that is tested by geologists for subsidence.

Camille, Betsy, Katrina, and now Gustav are going
to do massive damage to the City yet again, and
more federal tax payer money is going to rebuild
the city that is 9 feet below sea level in some areas
and some engineers say it is continuing to sink.

Its true that in the US we don't like to admit our mistakes
and keep just trudging on, but how many billions from
other states have to go to keep rebuilding the sinking city ?

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that is his point, the city needs to become a shipping center instead of a living area much like new york proper is mostly commercial buildings and any blue collar workers live at least half an hour away.

That'd be like working in NO and living a bit south of baton rouge.

Re:what the hell?

[Wyatt Earp]

When Rainer goes, and when it likely blows apart Redmond and Tacoma, it'll be like a nuclear device went off, look at Mount St Helens to see the effects. A Hurricane, even Cat 5s, don't cause that kind of damage.

24 megatons thermal energy (7 by blast, rest through release of heat) in seconds, a Cyclone releases 10 megatons of thermal energy every 20 minutes, on average. 300 mph blasts...

Pyroclastic Flows - At least 1,300 ÂF, what does a hurricane have to compare to that?

When Rainer goes off, the damage it could do will be more than all of the hurricanes that hit a major metropolitan area like NO.

Re:what the hell?

[Migraineman]

So pray tell where this disaster-potential-free zone is located.

Bzzzt. I'm not talking about some mythical "safe" zone. Everywhere has risks. However, I fail to comprehend why someone in Arizona should be paying into a fund to support flooding in Louisiana. Similarly, the Louisiana folks shouldn't be paying into a drought fund for Arizona. Choose an area to live in; accept the risks associated with doing so. DON'T live there with a Government Bail-Out being your disaster plan.

I have a "go kit." The wife and I have discussed our disaster plan, and know *exactly* what we need to "get out, right now." We can grab the kids, abandon non-essential stuff, and be on the road in about 10 minutes. Seriously. We understand the regional risks where we live, and are prepared accordingly. I *expect* exactly zero assistance from the government. That, it would seem, is my point.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ground is 50 feet above sea level only about 45 minutes from the center of NO.

That's not much worse than the average commute to NYC.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

well sure New Orleans is frigging underwater. It also was historically protected by kajillions of square miles of salt marsh and coastal wetland, which act as a sponge to rising water, a shock absorber to storm surge and a deep buffer to hurricane-force winds. it's not that you can't have a big, beautiful, sub-sea-level coastal city, it's that you can't have it and consistently undermine it with every act of industrial and environmental policy. duh. it is the Paris of America -- it doesn't have to be a sacrifice zone if we rebuild appropriately, which would include restoring coastal wetlands and putting a moratorium on redeveloping them.

Re:what the hell?

[Wyatt Earp]

"Reading her bio, I wonder if she's ever met a black person."

Well since she is in Alaska and Alaska is over 15% American Indian/Alaska Native, and her husband is half Eskimo-Aleut, I'm sure she knows "people of color" since that is what you are alluding to in your comment. As for "blacks" she's meet Sec State Rice, over 12% of Fairbanks ethnicity is "black" and the Anchorage boasts more languages spoken in the school system than New York City, so I am really confident she knows about other races.

Re:what the hell?

[Hatta]

Just what is the Federal Reserve supposed to do about it?

Re:what the hell?

[JustMeToo]

I agree 100%. I am in a coffee shop right now and everyone here is fuming at the prospect of using tax dollars to rebuild this below-sea-level city once again. To quote Albert Einstein, "the definition of INSANITY is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Re:what the hell?

[CrimsonAvenger]

It's below sea level in one of the most hurricane prone places on earth.

Hurricane prone? Hmm, we had Katrina. Which actually hit Mississippi, not New Orleans. Then FORTY years earlier, we had Betsie.

Both caused massive flooding. You know, the kind that you get along the Mississippi River maybe one year in ten. Note that Katrina's flooding were caused by a failure of the levees due to an unusually large storm-surge, even for a storm that size.

Right now, the local governments are in panic-mode. Not because this storm is going to cause widespread devastatation (it will in Terrebone Parrish, at least), but because they're afraid people will think they didn't take Katrina seriously, if they don't run at least laps screaming about falling skies.

Aaron Broussard is in full panic, of course. I heard him babbling on the radio about "a 20 foot wall of water and toxic sludge" hitting us. Note that that's the verbiage used during Katrina, and didn't actually happen then.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Under water doesn't mean much. Look at the dutch who have reclaimed millions of acres or more from swap and otherwise under sea level areas.

Doing isn't the problem. Doing it right and not letting corruption in government and incompetence take over is the problem. Holland often holds back seas twice the hight that New Orleans will see.

BTW, I like the way the article blames Bush for the Katrina mess. Everyone who isn't politically biased and covering their eyes (ears) should know by now that Katrina was as bad as it was because of failures at a local government levels. Incompetence from the mayor all the way up to the then governor failed the people of New Orleans well before any federal agency had a chance too. I'm not going to claim that FEMA couldn't have done things better but by the time they got into it, it was nothing but problems compounded on top of problems and their mission of aiding and supporting the local governments turned into a full blown search and rescue disaster recovery and support for 20 times as many people as they originally planned. The real story here should be how New Orleans isn't making the same mistakes of Katrina. And yes, the storm entered the area and we have confirmation of it's path in the same time frame as this on and Katrina. The only difference is that they went ahead and ordered an evacuation Saturday night instead of waiting until Sunday. I also noticed that the buses which were under water during Katrina are actually being used this time. What a difference that following a disaster plan which was ignored before Katrina makes.

Re:what the hell?

[SupremoMan]

Maybe. But isn't NATURE affected by rising global temperatures, which raise the water temperatures in the gulf which feeds the Hurricanes and turns a category 1-2 into 4?

Re:what the hell?

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

This is precisely why I love Slashdot. An insightful political statement that suddenly pulls a screaming left turn into a Star Trek analogy. It just brings tears of joy every time I see something so astute and yet jaw-droppingly nerdy. I love this place...

Re:what the hell?

[hugecabbage]

Why are rebuilding and living there?

Why is this modded +5 Insightful? There are plenty of populated areas on the east and gulf coasts, below, at and even above sea level that can and do sustain as much damage during hurricanes. I lived through Hugo, Charleston being a city where streets sometimes flood during high tides. The Mississippi river is full of taxpayer levees that are obviously susceptible to breaches and overflows. The plains have by far more tornadoes than any place on earth. I, and millions of people like me, live on or near some of the most dangerous faults in the country. And those are just the frequently active ones. Why would anyone build a city the size of Chattanooga, with no earthquake codes to speak of, in one of the most potentially dangerous quake zones in the country? Don't even get me started on the number of people in this country living in fire- and drought-prone areas. We populate in tinderboxes and deserts, for chrissakes. This is what we do, as Americans and as people. Don't single out NOLA as some bizarre aberration.

Re:what the hell?

[Colin Smith]

And here I thought we had this thing called a "nation" which embodied some elements of teamwork and shared pain/shared gain. Certainly when elements of our society decide it is time for a war they emphasize something they call "sacrifice" and "service".

The concept of the nation state is simply a propaganda device to persuade people to expend their lives on your behalf.

Certainly when elements of our society decide it is time for a war they emphasize something they call "sacrifice" and "service".

And if we insisted that our "leaders" lead by example, getting into an arena with the other guy they would be a damned site more circumspect in their decisions.
 

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting to look at this from a Dutch perspective. A few weeks ago I read a report of one of the Dutch companies helping to rebuild the dams there.

Most of The Netherlands is under sealevel, and the dikes have been built (mostly) to allow for 100-year storms. Not hurricanes though, I'm not sure there's much that can withstand that kind of violence.

However, in the case of New Orleans a few things come together that would be difficult to sell over here.

1) Really bad environmental hazards lying around in open pools on industrial zones. If they flood, guess what happens to the toxic stuff.

2) Rather ill-considered draining and flooding of surrounding areas (deforestation issues and drying out of surrounding areas for farming, so water buffer capability and "slowing down" of incoming water is much less than it used to be)

3) Not enough maintenance on dikes. If the sealevel increases it helps if you increase the height of your dikes.

4) Incorrect scenarios. THe scenarios used for predicting stuff like this were not uptodate.

Iirc, there is one area where, if the wind is right, you push water from 3 sides into a channel that runs directly into New Orleans. The advice given was to completely restructure that area, but it won't be done soon.

New Orleans can be made safe. It will, however, be costly and a lot of business interests will have to be hurt - farming first among them. The idea was that that would be a rather tough sell.

Re:what the hell?

[Toonol]

"The fed" - that is, your federal government - has agencies that are specifically designed to work quickly and effectively and do so.

In Katrina, they worked exactly the way they were supposed to; as a back up that city/state officials could utilize upon request. The foul-ups, delays, and general incompetence began there. By the time the feds moved in, the situation was already screwed, and it was 90% the fault of Mayor Nagin and the governor.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Score 5 for inaccuracy, South Louisiana is the 12th busiest seaport by cargo tonnage. There are other countries besides the USA. Interestingly, Rotterdam comes in at number 3 and is, along with the rest of Holland not much above sea level.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

From various Seattle-ites that I have talked to....the general answer seems to be: ANY FUCKING WHERE. "Somewhere theres some goddamn sunshine" someone told me. Maybe we should move it to California?

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It will be expensive. But people need to start thinking seriously about this. One might posit that it is just coincidence that we're getting two strong hurricanes in three years slamming into New Orleans.

But if one puts this into the overall context of Global Climate Change, then soon New Orleans (and a whole lot of other places in the world) may have to start figuring out what to do when sea levels rise significantly. This combined with continued hurricane damage and the likely inability for us to address these issues quickly by engineering to the levees or filling in the Gulf Outlet Canal will indeed force the nation as a whole to determine how to relocate entire cities.

Again, of course it will be expensive. That should not end the discussion. I imagine in about three days, we may indeed start hearing more discussion of how to move folk out rather than how to rebuild. Not only that, but I would venture to say we're going to see yet another huge drop in New Orleans permanent population.

Re:what the hell?

[Nyckname]

The Ports of New Orleans and South Louisiana are very important to commerce in and out of the Mid West.

Lots of oil infrastructure in the area.

The Dutch said never again after the storm of '53. In the Middle East they're building islands for new real estate.

Why won't the U.S. rebuild the barrier islands to help protect people and commerce?

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to disagree with you too much here... but there is another more important reason (or two) a good chuck of Southeast Asia builds with concrete rather than wood:

MONSOON

Seriously, there isn't anything like it in the US. Think very high humidity, dampness, constant rain and rather high temperatures for a good number of months. Furthemore, in many parts of greater India, the bugs would eat most anything made of wood in a rather short period of time if simple rot didn't do the trick.

And over there, wood is most likely more expensive than concrete.

Re:what the hell?

[drsquare]

This isn't Sim City where you can just 'declare something an industrial zone' and call it good. Where you have industry, you also have to have (nearby) the people to operate the industry and the people who support them. Which means in turn, the whole infrastructure enchilada - roads, schools, hospitals, etc. etc.

How many of the population of New Orleans actually work at the port? The running of a port doesn't necessitate jazz clubs, restaurants, brothels, NFL teams etc.

The port could be run like an oil rig or a military base, where only the workers live there and can be shipped out quickly before a hurricane hits.

Re:what the hell?

[Nutria]

Just because you spent your weekend trip to New Orleans puking in a gutter in the French Quarter instead of listening to jazz, I wouldn't assume that means it's "just a ghetto" and no longer the home of jazz.

No, it's a ghetto.

Every year, at the N.O. Jazz and Heritage Festival, hundreds of internationally renowned local acts play some of the most innovative and exciting jazz you'll ever hear.

Hah. The Jazz Fest sold out years ago.

Re:what the hell?

[toddestan]

I'm tired of hearing this fallacy. Can you not differentiate between areas where a natural disaster *might* happen, versus an area where it WILL happen, repeatably, every few years?

Re:what the hell?

[toddestan]

California is at least somewhat prepared for earthquakes. Buildings are built to withstand them, and things like that. That's a bit different from building a coastal city below sea level on the Gulf ceast and trying to protect it with a completely inadequate levy system.

Re:what the hell?

[tha_mink]

because it's their home and this isn't china where the government can forcibly move millions of people at their whim.

Says who? Last time I checked, it's was perfectly legal and done all the time.

Re:what the hell?

[smaddox]

What about the people still paying a mortgage for land under water? Will their insurance pay for them to abandon that land and move elsewhere? Doubtful.

If you are looking for a reason why people keep coming back, you don't have to look far. It's the oldest motive known to man - economics.

Re:what the hell?

[tha_mink]

Ok. So what? When was the last time that happened? 200 years ago? More?

Re:what the hell?

[Ex-MislTech]

They have a Lahar warning system going in.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/About/Highlights/RainierPilot/Pilot_highlight.html

With Rainier your looking at an infrequent event.

With the Gulf Coast it has been hit several times in the
last few decades, Katrina just 3 years ago.

Before that By Camille & Betsy, and now Gustav.

That is 4 major hits.

Again as in my previous post, I think building codes would
solve all of this once and for all.

In most major cities around the US you cannot build in
the 100 year flood plain, and in Earthquake zones you
have to build to code.

The same should apply to Hurricane prone areas.

Build to code, or build somewhere else.

Turn all of the Hurricane and Flood vulnerable sections
into a state park, or industrial land, do it over time
as time permits.

The only other possible solution is build 3 story parking
garages with houses on top where the large tracts of destroyed
houses are now and make the houses out of steel reinforced
concrete that can take a 2x4 hitting them at 200 mph.

Make it where all windows must have certified storm shutters.

Make Hurricane preparedness NOT optional, make it law.

It is like one poster said, you have the right to live anywhere
you want, but don't come digging in my wallet when your home
on the shore goes out to sea.

Re:what the hell?

[cayenne8]

"I agree - seriously, if we have to pay to rebuild NO every couple of years, we really should just re-engineer its flood production systems to be impenetrable. Of course then they'll be so damned ugly that nobody will want to live there, so..."

Actually, that is exactly what we need to do....do it right like the Netherlands did for Amsterdam, which is much farther below sea level than NOLA is.

One major thing that would protect NOLA, is to rebuild the wetlands, nature's barrier to the storm surrge. That alone would help...and much of it was destroyed by the laying of all the oil pipelines from the gulf into shore, which helps bring in much of the energy needs of the country as a whole. Also,fill in the MRGO (Mississippi River Gulf Outlet), which should have been closed off before Katrina...it acts as a direct pipeline for storm surge, and as it narrows increased its speed and force...that is what largely wiped out the 9th ward and the lower parishes.

The city of New Orleans IS important not just to the people there, but, to the nation. It is there for a VERY special reason, as the port city at the end of the MS river. A great deal of imported goods comes in through there, and a large majority of the goods exported from the middle of the US goes through there. It does not make sense to go further up the river. Also, a great deal, I think 30% or more of the oil/energy comes through there and is refined not far away...you have to have a city close to house the people that work those oil rigs and refineries...not to mention the fishing industry that works out of near there and below NOLA...supplying a large amount of seafood to the country.

Those are just the practical economical reasons that NOLA is important to the nation...and is worth the investment...don't even have to mention the contributions to US culture from there, nor the fact that the city is historical, and pre-dates the United States itself.

But for those that bitch about the rest of the country footing the bill for idiots that live there...do consider that most EVERY city in the US is in some danger zone from nature. How many times (annually at least) do we hear about the wildfires and mudslides that plague CA? You do know that New York city has the same nightmare hurricane scenario that NOLA does don't you? It is way overdo....SF has its earthquakes, the midwest has floods and tornadoes (Didn't we just see Iowa flooded out for the 2nd time in like 5 years?)...

The thing is...we all are in this country together, and need to help each other out...but, it should be done right, and unfortunately in this day in age, it seems impossibe somehwo to get things fixed right. The Army Corps of Engineers blew it on the levees that failed during Katrina. There has been a great deal of evidence of substandard repair on the levees this time around, and they haven't even attempted to build them to greater standards to resist a Cat 5 storm, which should be the plan. Do it right once, and be done with it....

But really...it isn't like NOLA is the only city that is in almost constant jeopardy of natural disaster...yet we don't hear people bitching about all the other cities that keep getting damaged or blown away. And at the very least, do consider the base economical importance that NOLA and the surrounding regions have to the US as a whole before you start spouting off nonsense like moving an entire fucking city and its people. If that is the argument, then lets be fair and suggest to most everyone else in CA that in in wildfire zones to relocate, and lets move NYC, since it is a hotspot for terrorist attacks, and the coming hurricane there...just to be proactive. Does that sound ridiculous? Yep...on all counts.

Re:what the hell?

[FishWithAHammer]

So make it an industrial zone. Move the city itself upriver a few miles. Better to spend the money on relocating it once than rebuilding every time it floods.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then lets also stop funding everyone in Florida and California, and everyone in trailer parks when the tornadoes hit them. Stupid racist.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the same time, you could easily use this argument for places like Tokyo and other areas that are and will be struck by tremendous earthquakes.

And monsters. Don't forget the monster attacks.

Yeah. Especially on Tuesdays. Tuesday is gonna be rough

Re:what the hell?

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Well in that case, there won't be anyone left to re-locate.

Re:what the hell?

[cayenne8]

"Folks seem to have lost an ability to take responsibility for their actions. If you choose to live in an earthquake/flood/volcano zone, fine. I respect your freedom to choose. However, don't come complaining that something bad happened to you, expecting me to pay for your decisions. I think the country's goodwill response to folks displaced by Katrina was phenomenal. I'm completely offended by the folks who bitched about it being "not good enough."

Well, if you narrow down all the places that are at serious risk every few years from natural disaster, flood, earthquake, fire, volcano, tornado, drought etc...you severely limit where you can live in the US. Pretty much everywhere in the states...MAJOR cities have problems like this, and it costs all of us.

I do agree however on your last comment...anyone saying the goodwill and response to those displaced by Katrina (and likely this one too) saying stuff like "not good enough" are assholes and idiots, and should be ignored. The vast majority of us are VERY grateful and touched by the outpouring of goodwill shown to us....

Please disregard that minority of people saying otherwise and just chalk it up to "there's always a jerk in every crowd".

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

But here's something those politicians will never admit: natural disasters are good for the business of government, for the same reason that crime, poverty, and war is good for the business of government.

It gives them a reason to expand their business -- both in revenue and power over the people.

Like it or not, it is in government's interest to keep rebuilding. Look how much power and revenue Katrina pulled through the hands of government. Of course, if you look even closer, you will realize that it was government that sowed the very seeds of disaster in New Orleans, promising to outsmart mother nature (betting the fate of an entire city on man-made structures) when they damn well knew it's impossible.

Re:what the hell?

[CrimsonAvenger]

But does the northwest get hit by several volcanic eruptions a year that cause billions and billions in damages, that are repaired with taxpayers' money? Do the earthquakes regularly cause damage on the scale of Katrina or other hurrcanes?

If by regularly, you means once every forty years or so, then New Orleans gets hit by hurricanes "regularly". Or were you rather foolishly assuming that EVERY hurricane causes damage to New Orleans? Sorry, just isn't so.

Hurricanes follow paths that are not random, but might as well be, for practical purposes - you have to guess whether it'll be a problem while it's 1000 miles away, and react based on that guess. If you're right, you look farsighted and insightful. If you're wrong, most of your constituents think you're an idiot and kick your incompetent arse out of office first chance they get.

Note, by the way, that three days before Katrina hit New Orleans, it was projected to hit Pensacola. Note further that it didn't actually hit New Orleans - it veered at the last minute and hit Mississippi much harder. It's just that New Orleans was much more news-worthy than hearing that Pass Christian ("what the hell is Pass Christian???") had been hammered yet again.

The funniest thing I see about Gustav right now is that McCain and Obama have both made the entirely snesible decision to stay out of the emergency preparations way right now, and are being lauded for it. When Bush did the same thing three years ago, he was castigated for it....

Re:what the hell?

[cayenne8]

"We can't force millions of people to move, but they can't force millions of taxpayers in other regions of the country to fund their decision to live there either."

Let's make sure and remember this the next time Iowa floods, CA has earthquakes, mudslides and wildfires, and NYC gets hit again by terrorists by bombs or airplanes.

I mean, after all, ALL states and cities are equal and due to equal treatment and consideration, right?

Re:what the hell?

[Arterion]

I think it is a comparison of severity. Sure, everywhere is going to have its share of disasters, but it just seems like there are going to be places that are so disaster-prone that one has to wonder if it's worth paying all that money to maintain when there are other places to live.

Re:what the hell?

[Zeinfeld]

This is precisely why I love Slashdot. An insightful political statement that suddenly pulls a screaming left turn into a Star Trek analogy. It just brings tears of joy every time I see something so astute and yet jaw-droppingly nerdy. I love this place...

Come to think of it, wasn't their a TOS episode in a parallel universe where the parallel Kirk had a drop dead gorgeous #2 and he kept looking at her ass every time she went past his chair?

Anyone else remember that episode?

Re:what the hell?

[cayenne8]

"Bzzzt. I'm not talking about some mythical "safe" zone. Everywhere has risks. However, I fail to comprehend why someone in Arizona should be paying into a fund to support flooding in Louisiana. Similarly, the Louisiana folks shouldn't be paying into a drought fund for Arizona. Choose an area to live in; accept the risks associated with doing so. DON'T live there with a Government Bail-Out being your disaster plan."

Well, in that case...we need to stop sending all that tax money to the Federal govt., and start keeping it to ourselves to fund our needs and rebuilding zones.

And...one big help for LA, would to be to just take posession of all those nice oil rigs/drilling operations and leases for sure from the Federal govt. and keep all that lease and royalty money for ourselves, rather than having it go into the US general funds. With that, we could MORE than take care of our rebuilding problems.

Re:what the hell?

[mrchaotica]

Of the major population and economic centers of the United States the only one that I can think of offhand that is not immediately vulnerable to a devastating natural disaster is Chicago.

Atlanta's pretty good too. Although we can technically get a wide variety of natural disasters, they're generally very infrequent and low in severity (e.g. hurricanes and earthquakes). The only major flood risk is if Buford Dam (the one on the Chattahoochee that contains Lake Lanier) breaks. A tornado went straight through downtown recently, but it certainly wasn't any sort of city-wide catastrophe like a hurricane or earthquake could be.

Re:what the hell?

[cashman73]

The Microsoft campus is built on solidified mud that flowed down during the last big eruption of Mount Rainer.

And this would a problem, why? Sounds to me like Microsoft's campus is built the same way Windows Vista was built.

Re:what the hell?

[Stephen Ma]

forcibly move millions of people at their whim.

First of all, have you heard of the Trail of Tears? The number of people forcibly moved was not in the millions, but it was easily in the tens of thousands.

Second, guess how George W. Bush got the land for building a stadium for his Texas Rangers baseball team. (Hint: the land was not voluntarily relinquished.)

Re:what the hell?

[mrchaotica]

And where is this money for brand new everything coming from? The people in the Lower 9th Ward don't exactly have the money for new condos in the new "riverview" district.

WTF? Everything in the Lower 9th Ward is brand new anyway, whether there's money or not, because everything there was destroyed by Katrina! It would have to be, or there'd be nothing there at all.

Re:what the hell?

[Igmuth]

Hey, it's not like there's other places in the world where people live quite safely below sea level. Of course that does involve these big lumps of sand and rocks to keep the water out, and those take taxes(hiss, spit!) to build.

Well, that and a lack of hurricanes.

Re:what the hell?

[mrchaotica]

Not only was it a bad choice of places to live...

It wasn't, originally: the French Quarter is built on high ground. It's only the people who came later who were idiots.

Re:what the hell?

[Stephen Ma]

However, I fail to comprehend why someone in Arizona should be paying into a fund to support flooding in Louisiana.

Because the Arizonan wants oil? The U.S. imports a lot of it from Mexico -- specifically, from the Cantarell supergiant oil field. Can you guess where that field is located? Right: the Gulf of Mexico.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a thought: people might also be slightly irked at the prospect of footing yet another ~$35 billion recovery bill in just three years. Any comparable bailouts you can cite?

There is a substantial difference in magnitude.

Re:what the hell?

[mrchaotica]

Apparently you've never heard of New York or LA. Can't afford to live with an hour of some places.

And yet, people do live within an hour 'some places'. And right in the heart of 'some places'. Or, in other words, why are you comparing chalk to cheese?

Yes, and those that live in the heart paid half a million for an apartment and probably have a second home someplace a little more sane. If they show up at city hall asking for disaster money, very few will have issue with telling them to shove off.

I've never been to NYC or LA, but surely they have low-income neighborhoods (a.k.a. "bad neighborhoods," "ghettos," "high-crime areas," etc.) just like every other city? People could certainly afford to move to those areas if they wanted to have a shorter commute.

Re:what the hell?

[pcolaman]

Considering McCain will be in MS and then Missouri, whereas Bush will be in Austin TX and San Antonio TX, I doubt it.

Re:what the hell?

[Mr. Slippery]

It's below sea level in one of the most hurricane prone places on earth. Why are rebuilding and living there?...Use the money to permanently relocate the population, not rebuild their soon-to-be blown away homes again.

Are you going to do that for everyone living along fault lines in California? In tornado-prone areas of the the midwest? There's not going to be anywhere left...

Remember that the damage to New Orleans three years ago was not from Katrina, but from the incompetence of the USACE and contractors in the construction of the levies.

Re:what the hell?

[mrchaotica]

...we're still essentially talking about building a NEW residential city to support the remaining port and industrial infrastructure. It would be exorbitantly expensive to pull off, to say the least!

They have to do that anyway! Didn't you see what happened after Katrina? Essentially, the whole fucking city is gone! They're spending the money either way; I (and the guy you replied to) just think they ought to build back on a different spot, rather than on top of the ruins.

Re:what the hell?

[ultranova]

Let people live there if they want, but there's a huge time consistency problem that creates moral hazard when you give people federal money to build there again.

There is not a single safe spot on Earth, nor in the entire universe in fact. No matter where you live, you can be hit by a disaster which resulted from you living there. And of course people don't necessarily have much of a choice about where they live, since moving costs a lot.

It all comes down to whether it is cheaper to relocate the entire population of New Orleans and deal with the problems arising from overcrowding in target areas, or to rebuild the city again. Of course, as the climate change progresses and extreme weather becomes more and more commonplace, it might indeed be cheaper to do the former.

Re:what the hell?

[TheModelEskimo]

Hey, we have a "Godwin's Law" for mentions of Nazism. Can we get some sort of snarky law for people who suddenly bring up a Star Trek analogy in a discussion? :-)

Re:what the hell?

[Kent Recal]

I pity you. I pity you. I pity you.

Re:what the hell?

[Firethorn]

Of the major population and economic centers of the United States the only one that I can think of offhand that is not immediately vulnerable to a devastating natural disaster is Chicago.

But, on a percentage basis, what are the odds of an ice storm actually devastating Chicago? So much so that they STILL wouldn't be 'fully' recovered in 5-10 years? That large segments of the city would simply be condemned? I mean, I can understand some windows needing replacing, a lot of power work, etc... But nothing that'll take longer than a month to fix 99% of the damage.

Flood zones are known, for the most part. Determining the elevation of any given plat in New Orleans is simple. In the midwest a few towns have been relocated - sometimes only a few thousand yards. Why? Statistical analysis showed that their town happened to be built in a localized 'tornado alley' - the tornado percentages even a mile away being an order of magnitude less.

In Earthquake prone cities, building codes specify building methods to withstand earthquakes.

Back a hundred years ago, fire was the biggest devastator of cities. Thus the spread of fire codes. Heck, in California I think that they need to specify even MORE fire resistance on the part of homes built in areas subject to wildfires - along with mandatory/suggested fire breaks and such.

On the insurance side - most of the other risks people have insurance for, and aren't 99% dependent on the Feds to make their loss good.

If we weren't looking at bailing them out again, if they had private insurance, it wouldn't be as big of a deal.

I've been down on the coast a few times, and I've seen substantially different construction in many areas. Much more in the way of elevated living. Stick the house on TOP of the garage, etc...

Re:what the hell?

[Tycho]

Actually, in cases when a town has been built on the floodplain of a river, when a flood does occur and everything in the town is lost, the government offers buyout packages to disaster victims, for both individuals and small businesses. In the end, those without flood insurance get less money from various sources in total for all damage received than those with flood insurance. However, it makes more sense for one to accept the buyout regardless of the situation. If one's home is washed away and a total rebuild is required, it generally makes more sense to move to the new location of the town. Without flood insurance, water service, available potable groundwater, available sewer service, road maintenance, or any other city service, I can't see any reason to stay if a buyout is available. After the flood on the Mississippi in 1993, the land the old flooded town sites that the feds bought out often times ended up as wetlands. The wetlands will help mitigate the effects of the next flood, and in the event of a future, larger flood, people living downstream will appreciate not losing their home. You personally might even appreciate not having to pay to rebuild the homes of the downstream residents.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look here, too: "The port of Rotterdam is the largest in Europe and was the world's busiest port from 1962 to 2004, until it was overtaken by Shanghai."

Re:what the hell?

[Acapulco]

It's not really underwater. It's under the sea level.

Would be pretty cool if underwater ;)

Re:what the hell?

[sn00ker]

Katrina's emergency response from the feds was very similar to previous storms. What changed was the magnitude of the disaster AND the gross ineptitude of local authorities and _citizens_.

Ably assisted by Dubbyah making FEMA a sub-agency of DHS, which appears to be the most incompetent agency in existence - a title that takes some doing, I know.
As soon as you make emergency managers part of a body that's all about finding "t3h terrists", you change its focus and direction. Whether or not FEMA was a charlie foxtrot before 11/9 is a point for argument, I'm sure, but since being subsumed into DHS it's been an unstoppable toboggan ride into the abyss of bureaucratic hell.

If you want to see how emergency management should be run, look to the Coasties. They saved 33.5k people after Katrina, and they have fewer than 40k staff! They don't insist on kicking decisions about the colour of Post-It notes up to national command level, which means they're agile and can respond quickly. Local commanders have authority to make decisions, and that's that. The closure of NY Harbour after the planes crashed was ordered by the port captain, without having to check with his boss, or his boss' boss. Same with Baltimore/Washington. That is how an emergency organisation needs to think and function. Instead, DHS and all its subsidiary parts (with the exception of USCG, it seems) are all about buck-passing and central control.

It was telling that, in the wake of Katrina, one Louisiana sheriff said "I'd blow up FEMA and ask the Coastguard what it needs."

Re:what the hell?

[Mr. Slippery]

However, I fail to comprehend why someone in Arizona should be paying into a fund to support flooding in Louisiana.

For the same reason I, living outside of Baltimore, Maryland, pay into a fund that supports the the military defense of people living in California, Arizona, and Louisiana. It's the nature of a nation - common defense. That defense includes not just the threat of foreign invasion, but natural disasters, pandemics, and domestic insurgencies.

I have a "go kit.".. I *expect* exactly zero assistance from the government.

Self-reliance is all well and good, but doesn't change the fact that government action should be expected also. I have smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and an home escape plan, but I still expect the fire department to come if my house is on fire. I have guns, but I still expect the army or state militia to be deployed if the British attack Baltimore again. I have first aid supplies and training, but I still expect the EMTs to show up in an emergency.

Re:what the hell?

[Zeinfeld]

Hey, we have a "Godwin's Law" for mentions of Nazism. Can we get some sort of snarky law for people who suddenly bring up a Star Trek analogy in a discussion? :-)

Unfortunately for you, meta-Godwins law states that attempts to bring Godwin's law into a slashdot discussion will cause it to go on forever.

Re:what the hell?

[ultranova]

How many of the population of New Orleans actually work at the port? The running of a port doesn't necessitate jazz clubs, restaurants, brothels, NFL teams etc.

Actually yes, it does. Running a port requires people, and people require entertainment.

The port could be run like an oil rig or a military base, where only the workers live there and can be shipped out quickly before a hurricane hits.

That would necessitate paying more to attract workers to such bleak working conditions. There is no free lunch. And you'd still need to provide them entertainment, or deal with the shit bored people get up to.

Re:what the hell?

[Das Modell]

It's been tried.

Re:what the hell?

[ErkDemon]

Or, Bush was quite insistent that New Orleans WAS going to be rebuilt, and that the people of New Orleans WERE going to go back to New Orleans - because he sure as hell didn't want them relocating permanently to neighboring Texas.

Re:what the hell?

[ErkDemon]

Well, at least they've rebuilt the levies properly this time ...

(watches some news)

Oh. Crap. Never mind, forget that I said that.

(watches more news)

Well, at least the bits of levies that they HAVE rebuilt look better, it's just there that haven't quite finished joining them up yet. Well, I guess it's just as well that water can't go round corners.

Oh. Crap.

Re:what the hell?

[RMH101]

I cannot read this without picturing Pete Townshend windmilling

Re:what the hell?

[ErkDemon]

New Orleans residents have been crapped on ever since the city was originally founded as a giant "real estate" con. French investors were persuaded that it was a paradise, only to find that when they turned up it was actually a stinking, fetid, disease-ridden alligator-infested swampland.

And this info is from the New Orleans tourist information plaques - seriously!

Re:what the hell?

[couchslug]

"because it's their home and this isn't china where the government can forcibly move millions of people at their whim."

That does not equate to a requirement to humor their stupid choice of a place to live. Cut them a check and condemn the areas that require levee protection.

I'd take that deal myself, because there is plenty of America left to live in without clinging to such plague spots. There is no quaint decadence that can not be duplicated further inland. (In fact, the people who built the "quaint" bits like the French Quarter were smart enough to select HIGH GROUND.)

Re:what the hell?

[ConceptJunkie]

It's funny how many Japanese discover their homeowner's insurance doesn't cover monster attacks.

You're 40 years into a 200-year mortgage, things are going fine, you can enjoy jellied urchin in your own luxurious 12 sq. ft. office with high-speed internet and 7 TVs, the kids don't bother you because they're in cram school 14 hours a day, and the Aibo's much less annoying since its battery died and WHAM! Rodan levels your block and you find out you aren't covered for "direct attacks or collateral damage from mythological monsters, creatures mutated by nuclear accidents or other sources of radioactivity, giant robots, mechanical life forms or powered battle armor".

Buy monster coverage people... it's the only sane thing to do!

Re:what the hell?

[ShakaUVM]

>>One might posit that it is just coincidence that we're getting two strong hurricanes in three years slamming into New Orleans.

If it's not coincidence, then what is it??

Of course, Michael Moore said that Gustav is evidence that God hates the Republicans, and some democrat leaders were filmed laughing about it... but still, I'd call it coincidence.

Re:what the hell?

[cayenne8]

"Just a thought: people might also be slightly irked at the prospect of footing yet another ~$35 billion recovery bill in just three years."

Sadly...no one knows exactly where that money went..if it came at all.

From what I understand, the majority of it did not to to NOLA...but, to MS, and some to AL. MS did have a lot of totally wiped out areas, but, nothing like the overall damage to NOLA, yet we did not get the majority of the money.

And there is also a big difference between $35 billion being approved....and $35 billion actually making it somewhere.

I know LA has a bad reputation for corruption, but, I don't think that was the case...they were being watched like hawks, and people that did get caught trying to defraud the system are now in prison. No, the money didn't make it....and much of the money had rules preventing its use. For instance, communities wanting to repair and rebuild a firestation or park...well, the rules said they had to build it, and then apply to be reimbursed from the fed monies. Trouble is, with no tax funds coming in from largely missing population, there was no money to come up with to start the projects...and when at first contractors would work to bill for the repairs...when they finished, the govt. took so long to pay them back, well....that scared future contractors from working for the local govt. on credit.

So..please don't kid yourself that NOLA and the surrounding community got a nice big bulk of $35billion and then squandered it. That is not the case...

Re:what the hell?

[couchslug]

"you have to have a city close to house the people that work those oil rigs and refineries...not to mention the fishing industry that works out of near there and below NOLA...supplying a large amount of seafood to the country."

It does not have to be located in the flood zone, nor does it have to be a single community. The slums and other areas that were hellholes before Katrina should not be replaced because that perpetuates everything bad about New Orleans.

Re:what the hell?

[jabithew]

Er. Why is it ok for industrial zones to be wiped out? Remember what happened to petrol prices after Katrina? Not to mention billions of dollars of investment wiped off the map; what makes you think any sensible business would invest in those zones if they were deemed unfit for people?

Re:what the hell?

[Wyatt Earp]

The most recent recorded volcanic eruption was between 1820 and 1854, but many eyewitnesses reported eruptive activity in 1858, 1870, 1879, 1882 and 1894 as well.

"A repeat of the Osceola mudflow would destroy Enumclaw, Kent, Auburn, and most or all of Renton. Such a mudflow might also reach down the Duwamish estuary and destroy parts of downtown Seattle, and cause tsunamis in Puget Sound and Lake Washington."

The "so what" is that Mt Rainier poses as tangible and tacit threat to a major urban area as hurricanes do to the Gulf Coast, so if we are going to start clearing urban centers like New Orleans because of threats of tropical storms, have to do it for volcanos too, not to mention earthquakes.

If we look at earthquakes and the damages they will do in the long term, time to clear SF/Oakland, LA basin, Portland, Seattle, etc

Re:what the hell?

[mrchaotica]

And Arkansas has earthquakes!

Re:what the hell?

[DigiShaman]

Houston is another major port city. Last I heard, a lot of the activity shifted over to Houston after Katrina.

I couldn't tell you how much has shifted back, but I'm sure Houston could take on the entire load of the New Orleans port. After all, Houston has (and continues to build) one of the most advanced highway infrastructures in the *world* to handle it.

Re:what the hell?

[DamienNightbane]

Except that Rainier won't do that. St. Helens was a fluke. Should Rainier do the same thing as St. Helens, the worst case scenario would be the loss of Orting and Puyallup and all of the other tiny towns in the valley to the mudflow. Tacoma and Seattle would be unscathed save for the ash covering everything. Even then, we had weeks and weeks of warning before St. Helens blew. Don't even try to compare a once every few hundred years eruption to something that happens several times every summer.

Re:what the hell?

[harlows_monkeys]

It's below sea level in one of the most hurricane prone places on earth. Why are rebuilding and living there?

The same can be said of pretty much every major populated area--the only difference is that it would be a different threat in other areas. Earthquakes for the entire west coast, for example.

Re:what the hell?

[cayenne8]

"It does not have to be located in the flood zone, nor does it have to be a single community. The slums and other areas that were hellholes before Katrina should not be replaced because that perpetuates everything bad about New Orleans."

I don't think anybody is really seriously advocating that....Katrina was a chance to brush off the cruft, and start anew. And in the past 3 years..progress has been made. The charter school system was starting to take off...the good parts of the city were coming back...etc. Many of the old projects (slums) have been taken down (this was actually slated before Katrina, the stupid protesters would not acknowledge this).

And...there were several public servants that have been caught red handed in corrupt activities, and others are under investigation. It is nice to see that it is becoming a more normal city legalwise.

It still has a way to go...but, NOLA is indeed shedding a lot of the bad stuff from the past you alluded to. Getting rid of the welfare state, and the cycle of poverty it engendered. I hope the storm can pass the city by, and give it a chance to keep progressing to become the jewel of the south that it once was.

Re:what the hell?

[DamienNightbane]

Give it two days.

Re:what the hell?

[DerekLyons]

The port could be run like an oil rig or a military base, where only the workers live there and can be shipped out quickly before a hurricane hits.

It never fails to amaze me how willing Slashdotters are to insist on how other people must live - while denying that anyone else has such rights over them.

Re:what the hell?

[couchslug]

"There is a cost of learned helplessness beyond dependence on the dole. When it came time for them to do for themselves they fell flat of their faces (as will most)."

There is a cost of "embraced helplessness" beyond dependence on the dole.

New Orleans citizen behavior during and after the disaster has triggered considerable resentment.

It has caused many to view the place as a corrupt, thug-ridden, and better off dispersed, even if the folks who live there don't like it. The historic parts will survive, as well as the container port. The rest are not necessary.

Re:what the hell?

[SeaFox]

And here I thought we had this thing called a "nation" which embodied some elements of teamwork and shared pain/shared gain. Certainly when elements of our society decide it is time for a war they emphasize something they call "sacrifice" and "service".

This notion of "shared responsibility" only seems to come up when there's a disaster like this. Otherwise America has always been a land of "everyone for themselves", as the pattern of one person's gain causing another's pain continues.

Certainly when elements of our society decide it is time for a war they emphasize something they call "sacrifice" and "service".

By "elements" you mean the people in power, whose children are (coincidentally) kept out of the "sacrifice" part of the equation?

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, GP is a loon, there are lots of places that only cost $1500/month on the island, around Harlem. You'd only need to make $20/hour to live there. That's below the poverty line, didn't they just bump minimum up to like $15?

Re:what the hell?

[arkane1234]

However they can deem the area uninhabitable, which would stop the mess again.

Re:what the hell?

[dbIII]

The Microsoft campus is built on solidified mud that flowed down during the last big eruption of Mount Rainer. In fact the entire Seattle/Tacoma area is at risk from such an eruption including Microsoft, the PacNorth software industry, and Boeing. Where do you suggest we move Seattle?

San Francisco :)

Some may find fault with this.

Re:what the hell?

[arkane1234]

So don't live there... that's a pretty responsible fix.

Re:what the hell?

[arkane1234]

uh guy... they've just unravelled a funding corruption from the Katrina funding. You can "not think" it all you want...

Re:what the hell?

[couchslug]

"And at the very least, do consider the base economical importance that NOLA and the surrounding regions have to the US as a whole before you start spouting off nonsense like moving an entire fucking city and its people."

Not the entire city, just the bits that require levees. There is no reason to build below sea level in an area with plenty of room inland.

"If that is the argument, then lets be fair and suggest to most everyone else in CA that in in wildfire zones to relocate,"

Wildfire zones are (also!) the result of voluntary poor land management. Remove the vegetation around homes and fire will not reach them. That is an affordable choice, and perhaps Californians who like their homes will groom accordingly. I don't have any problem felling the trees near my house and keeping my field mowed. If they lose their homes because they were too busy hugging trees to remove fire hazards, too bad. My chainsaw works fine.

"and lets move NYC, since it is a hotspot for terrorist attacks, and the coming hurricane there...just to be proactive."

Poor comparison. Terrorists would simply switch targets, and NYC wasn't deliberately built and rebuilt below sea level. NOLA was originally built above sea level, and those are the historic/culturally important parts. We can afford to lose the rest.

There is plenty of land in the rest of Louisiana to build on that isn't storm bait. New Orleans isn't some cultural jewel, excepting the few antebellum parts. The rest is just generic Southern city architecture that can be built elsewhere. It's no Amsterdam, it never was. so precisely what is it about the areas of NOLA that are BELOW sea level that merits protection?

Re:what the hell?

[arkane1234]

What does NOLA stand for? Is it some FEMA sub-branch?

Re:what the hell?

[arkane1234]

And here I thought we had this thing called a "nation" which embodied some elements of teamwork and shared pain/shared gain. Certainly when elements of our society decide it is time for a war they emphasize something they call "sacrifice" and "service".

We live in a place that has free choice, and if it's your free choice to live next to a bomb and it goes off that does not mean the tax payers are going to rebuild your house so you can put another bomb next to it.

Yes, that's what New Orleans is. Especially now, with the increasing storm powers from global warming which has been documented and spoke about for years now.

So, in essence, Insurance covers your ass just like everyone elses property. Since it's a known thing that will happen, the insurance will be higher... and so will your risk for staying in that location. The smartest thing to do is locate yourself in a place that isn't a red alert zone if you expect to not have any problems.

Re:what the hell?

[Wooky_linuxer]

Perhaps because Bush was the fucking President and McCain and Obama aren't? Gee.

Re:what the hell?

[arkane1234]

Yep, that's it... consider someone telling you to cover your ass a little as a reason to hint at secession.

Your losing credibility with every sentence, since we know if that happened there'd be a desolate wasteland on the south of Arkansas and Mississippi.

Re:what the hell?

[HuguesT]

This is the most insightful comment of the whole discussion.

Re:what the hell?

[arkane1234]

And where is this money for brand new everything coming from? The people in the Lower 9th Ward don't exactly have the money for new condos in the new "riverview" district.

Those individuals should seriously consider relocating then before they lose it.

Re:what the hell?

[dbIII]

The thing that utterly astounded me was the effort expended to keep volunteers out and sheer stupidity like diverting firemen for a day long course on how to deal with the media before sending them in. I live on the other side of the world in a place where cyclones of similar size frequently hit the coast - volunteers do the majority of disaster work since you can never get enough police/military/whatever in quickly enough.

Re:what the hell?

[arkane1234]

because he sure as hell didn't want them relocating permanently to neighboring Texas.

[Citation needed]

Re:what the hell?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Perhaps because Bush was the fucking President and McCain and Obama aren't?

Ahh. I didn't realize that being President included an obligation to interfere in major disaster relief by stopping by a for a photo-op. My bad.

Or do you really think that the effort to get the President to anywhere is so trivial as all that. There are multiple planeloads of people associated with a move by POTUS. Plus the local security people of course. Last time a President came to New Orleans in GOOD weather, it screwed up traffic all over the city for a day - people were swearing up a blue streak when they realized that someone that they didn't even vote for had turned their 20 minute commute into a three hour commute....

Re:what the hell?

[arkane1234]

Or even north Phoenix (Arizona) to Chandler or Tempe (Arizona). A pretty usual commute for those in cities unless they live relatively close to work.

Re:what the hell?

[dbIII]

VP off ... but only require one tenth the amount of secret service etc. entourage

You obviously didn't see "Prince" Cheney's Royal visit to Sydney - three times the motorcade and fanfare of the real royalty Queen Elizabeth II.

However a competant administration would have handled the State/Fed issues over the phone and flown in the leader or representative with little other than a helicopter crew. Consider disaster response in other countries and leaders turning up to take a look - even in China the leader turned up with a small group and little fanfare instead of a massive PR stunt with a huge entourage. There are dozens of other examples I just chose a recent one so please keep political differences with China out of any response.

Re:what the hell?

[arkane1234]

If you had "American Indian" ancestry, you would never refer to yourself as "American Indian" unless your 1/10th Cherokee.... American Indian has always smacked of someone from India who relocated to America.

Try Native American, or even the tribal name.

Re:what the hell?

[arkane1234]

First of all, have you heard of the Trail of Tears [wikipedia.org]? The number of people forcibly moved was not in the millions, but it was easily in the tens of thousands.

Nearly 200 years ago....

Re:what the hell?

[arkane1234]

That alone should scare the living hell out of you since the average hurricane now is a category 3+, and New Orleans is right in the middle of the natural hurricane path... multi-yearly....

Re:what the hell?

[Stephen Ma]

Nearly 200 years ago....

So? Has the land been returned to the Cherokee, Choctaw, etc.? They are still suffering, and the whites are still benefiting.

Re:what the hell?

[solitas]

mod parent 'insightful'

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Microsoft campus is built on solidified mud that flowed down during the last big eruption of Mount Rainer.

You say that like it's a bad thing!?! You need to focus on the positive effects if it were to happen again.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's below sea level in one of the most hurricane prone places on earth. Why are rebuilding and living there?

Make it an industrial zone and be done with it. Use the money to permanently relocate the population, not rebuild their soon-to-be blown away homes again.

Although New Orleans had its share of tough hurricanes, Katrina was the first big one that turned it into the costliest hurricane in US history. It was also ranked the sixth strongest hurricane to hit the US.

Your comment is insightful, but I'd only argue like this if this troubled area was hit by hurricanes more frequently than it currently is. Forcing people to leave their homes is more than just a material loss. There's history, lost ones and more.

At the same time, you could easily use this argument for places like Tokyo and other areas that are and will be struck by tremendous earthquakes.

And in Tokyo, and other earthquake-prone locations, they build to new specifications, that are resistant to the natural-disaster conditons. Period.

The consensus response in NOLA to the cry of "put them on 20-foot stilts - you're 18 feet below sea-level" was that "it'd be too expensive." (As well as other building-code related measures that would at least help.) BTW - how many pumps run on a *good* day in NOLA?

Sorry - earthquake-proofing costs, so does hurricane- and flood-proofing. If you can't afford it, move. Period, dot, full-stop.

If the folks in CA can do it (I've lived there), the folks in NOLA can, *or*, and I can't believe that I'm typing this...the economic impact of NOLA being hit yet again is apparently not that great. Comparing the economic loss of one commerce center to another opens you up to that argument...sorry - without reasonable arguments that the NOLA folk even were willing to consider inconveniences to avoid disaster....

Re:what the hell?

[Chibi Merrow]

I find the mental block people have astounding, it's like FEMA did no wrong before 2005 and suddenly people were stunned by their shocking ineptitude.

You'd be hard pressed to find a single example of a disaster they handled WELL pre-Katrina, so I don't understand why their performance during Katrina was so surprising. If anything (as I keep pointing out) they responded FASTER to Katrina than Andrew.

The difference was all the previous disasters didn't happen in Louisiana, so their ineptitude was outshined by the stunning work of local officials...

Re:what the hell?

[Chibi Merrow]

It has caused many to view the place as a corrupt, thug-ridden, and better off dispersed

So you mean now they know the truth? :)

Re:what the hell?

[YrWrstNtmr]

there can be a port without a bunch of impoverished people living there below sea level

Not really.
1. Move everyone out, now
2. build an industrial port complex
3. Wait 100 years
4. Look at the 'city' that has grown around that port complex...
5. Watch the 'once a century' hurricane demolish it.

this works '100 years' in the past, or '100 years' in the future

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

"At the same time, you could easily use this argument for places like Tokyo and other areas that are and will be struck by tremendous earthquakes."

You could, but the construction techniques for making buildings earthquake-proof (or nearly so) is pretty well advanced and effective. A city like Tokyo would survive fairly well even in a severe earthquake. There would be damage, but c compared to, say, 50 years ago, it would be far less even though the population has greatly increased. Even if it is expensive, earthquake-proofing is widely implemented in earthquake prone areas in new buildings. Retrofitting old buildings is dramatically more expensive, though.

The construction techniques for making buildings and other structures immune to the effects of being immersed under water is, uh, rather less advanced. It is possible to make buildings highly flood and hurricane resistant, mainly by jacking them up to greater heights and putting them on supports or a raised foundation, and there are even strategies for making them float when water levels rise, but it is a bit futile if the land surface is up to 6m below normal sea level, let alone during storm surge.

An earthquake-prone area has great variation in earthquake strength from event to event, but it does have an statistically-predictable average distribution of strengths over time that is related to its tectonic setting. It doesn't get worse, it just varies.

Here's the real bad news. Not only would it be enormously expensive to completely flood proof New Orleans buildings and other structures for the risks today (and maybe those costs might be on par with earthquake-proofing), but New Orleans will get worse over the years. The whole area is continuing to subside, and on top of that sea level is rising. The costs of making it safe to live there aren't static, they are ever-increasing. Someday people will have to face the geological and oceanographic reality and leave.

The only way to avoid this is to make a truly MASSIVE investment in storm barriers like those in the Netherlands and Venice, except those two locations don't have to deal with Category 5 hurricanes. It will be more expensive and it will take decades to implement. Maybe that's worth it -- that's a political and social judgment call people will have to debate -- but it would still be a temporary solution. There's no point in sugar coating it. People need to face that reality.

I hope that in the short term people are okay in New Orleans, but they are going to face some really tough choices in the next few years about what to do, because this problem will only get worse.

Re:what the hell?

[Chibi Merrow]

As I've posted in other spots, I was actually working in the government in Louisiana about two hours west of New Orleans when this all went down. In the aftermath of the storm, with people sitting on their rooftops waiting for rescue, a lawyer in Lafayette, LA put together a group of about 150 private small boats to caravan to New Orleans and volunteer to pull people off roofs. When they got near the city, officials from Wildlife and Fisheries told them "Oh we don't need help, go home." and made them return home. The lawyer and another boat snuck back into the city via an alternate route and launched their boats from an off-ramp. They started rescuing people from hospitals and rooftops, with the people they were rescuing wondering aloud why they were the only two boats they'd seen... Eventually they kinda got "commandeered" with armed security personnel onboard protecting them as they evacuated people from one of the hospitals. The people working inside the city were happy for the help and desperate for more, but the state officials outside of the city were still turning people away.

This sort of stuff was rampant during the entire ordeal: volunteers turned away, rescue workers commandeered by state officials for their own personal use, local officials taking first pick of relief supplies, local officials lying about their situation on national news programs to generate sympathy, etc.

Re:what the hell?

[sapphire wyvern]

It's the oldest motive known to man - economics.

I'd say that was the second-oldest motive, at best. After all, the world's oldest profession was formed by the combination of the two oldest motives... ;)

Re:what the hell?

[Chibi Merrow]

"The fed" - that is, your federal government - has agencies that are specifically designed to work quickly and effectively and do so.

You and I must be thinking of a completely different Federal Government. I'd make a joke about the only agency being efficient and effective being IRS Collections, but I did taxes for a year so I know that's not the case either.

FEMA worked quite effectively in previous disaster situations.

Really? Can you name one case where they did? I was a bit young to remember most of them, but I remember how badly they handled Hurricane Andrew because I was in that Hurricane and was shocked at how bad the people in Florida had it.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

You, uh, do know that NOLA is NOrthern LOusiana, not some mystic shorthand for New Orleans, right?

Almost indicates that you just may not know what you are ranting about...

Re:what the hell?

[Tyrobi]

At least only allow residents/workers who can move out on their own without help during mandatory evacuation to reside there.

Re:what the hell?

[kjots]

Your comment is insightful, but I'd only argue like this if this troubled area was hit by hurricanes more frequently than it currently is.

What, like twice in three years? Methinks your comments may come back to haunt you :-)

Let's play a games called "What if global warming is real and we are heating the atmosphere and causing more frequent and violent hurricanes along tropical and sub-tropical coastal areas regardless of how many millions of honest, god-faring people are living there". The good thing about this game is all we have to do is wait around a few decades to see which one of us is right. You get bonus points if you move to New Orleans (and survive).

Also, earthquakes are seldom seasonal.

Re:what the hell?

[demonlapin]

Personally, I'd be fine with people putting buildings above sea level, but if you'd be flooded simply by cutting the Lake Pontchartrain levees on a clear day, you shouldn't be there. Look at the 1870s or 1880s map that the Times-Picayune dragged up: developed along the river and two ridges extending along (now) Gentilly Blvd and toward Metairie. Levees for flood control are great ideas, but building below sea level is just dumb.

Those who wish to argue that the Netherlands do so are free to point out the examples of the Netherlands being hit by actual hurricanes with actual storm surges. (Up-thread, someone posted a link to a story with 77-mph winds in the Netherlands. That's barely Cat 1 status and equivalent to what I saw - roughly 200 miles from the Gulf - during Katrina. And the North Sea, due to geography, can't develop the massive storm surge that Katrina did.)

Re:what the hell?

[cayenne8]

"What does NOLA stand for? Is it some FEMA sub-branch?"

Abbreviation for the city. New Orleans, LA = NOLA

Re:what the hell?

[cayenne8]

" You, uh, do know that NOLA is NOrthern LOusiana, not some mystic shorthand for New Orleans, right? Almost indicates that you just may not know what you are ranting about..."

Wrong...see other post. It is for New Orleans, LA....anyone that lives here or in the area knows that. For instance, why does NOLA.com give reports and news about New Orleans....and not northern Louisiana as you try to put forth?

Re:what the hell?

[cayenne8]

I never mentioned secession...only that if we got the full royalties from the lease rights from the oil reserves off OUR coast, we'd not need any funding from the Feds or other states for rebuilding our wetlands and levee systems, which were damaged (the wetlands) by the oil industry infrastructure.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as New Orleans is the largest port in the world by gross tonnage, I don't think it'd be too easy to just shut down.

NOT true.

I was pretty sure that Long Beach was the biggest USA port.

after a quick search
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060911071439AAs6dXC

Re:what the hell?

[digitalchinky]

And for some reason (magic possibly involved) this little storm of yours is causing the price of fuel (gas) for me to go up, and I live almost exactly on the other side of the planet from you.

If this small spot on the earth is so volatile that it can cause financial repercussions in Asia, why not move it somewhere less prone to disaster? There's a whole lot of coastline you can use to plant down your 'most important port in the nation'

Typhoons are a constant in this part of the world for many months of the year, earthquakes are a little more infrequent, but they are also common, this is life on the pacific rim. What do we do? We build our stuff out of reinforced concrete and steel. We manage the water system so that we don't have our cities flooded. (Exception being for Tsunami, they have right of way in most cases)

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but you could argue that any place, close to or below sea level (and near the sea) could potentially be a bad place for people to live. This includes the Netherlands, Vietnam, Egypt, Bahamas, Bangladesh, and China (among other places). Sure sea level may be close, but dikes and other protective barriers (levies), make large areas of land available, and for the vast majority of the time, very safe. The US government had excellent computer simulations months before Katrina, which the Bush Administration (and the Army Corps of Engineers) could have acted on, to great effect. The former did not green-light the latter to make necessary repairs, do maintenance and strengthen what was in place. The simulations were more than 99.999% accurate, sadly. But the more important war on terror took government money and priorities. Thousands at home perished, tens of thousands turned into refugees. A avoidable, trillion dollar disaster.

Re:what the hell?

[ultranova]

I'm tired of hearing this fallacy. Can you not differentiate between areas where a natural disaster *might* happen, versus an area where it WILL happen, repeatably, every few years?

If New Orleans gets flooded every few years, why was Katrina newsworthy ? Why is this new storm newsworthy ?

And natural disaster will happen anywhere, not *might*; it's simply a matter of time.

Re:what the hell?

[shanen]

So you believe every captioned video you see on the Web, eh? And no, that's *NOT* what Michael Moore said, either. However, I didn't stop by to start of a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Having noticed your flagrant stupidity, I just want to ask you to designate me as your foe so that I'll be less likely to see your posts in the future.

I suppose it's possible that you're trying to make a joke, but if so you're a poor enough comic that I ask you to designate me as a foe on those grounds. Interesting humor has to be based on an understanding of reality before you can make the joke about reality.

Re:what the hell?

[sumdumass]

Lol.. I think we already had that economic war. The north won. You couldn't take the oil rigs or leases and it sounds like your talking about succession.

Now, I'm not apposed to keeping the money at the state level. It is actually the way it should be. The states should be in control of most everything and the feds should be limited to what the constitution says it can do.

Re:what the hell?

[sumdumass]

For the same reason I, living outside of Baltimore, Maryland, pay into a fund that supports the the military defense of people living in California, Arizona, and Louisiana. It's the nature of a nation - common defense. That defense includes not just the threat of foreign invasion, but natural disasters, pandemics, and domestic insurgencies.

I think there is a fundamental difference between "protecting us from invasion, providing a common defense, and aid in saving lives during a natural disaster or some other event" and funneling money to a specific region years after something happened just to do it again when it happens again 3 years later.

Self-reliance is all well and good, but doesn't change the fact that government action should be expected also. I have smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and an home escape plan, but I still expect the fire department to come if my house is on fire. I have guns, but I still expect the army or state militia to be deployed if the British attack Baltimore again. I have first aid supplies and training, but I still expect the EMTs to show up in an emergency.

Do you expect the feds to show up when your house is on fire? Do you expect Washington to send a team down from Ohio when you need an emt? For the most part, that is handled by the local government, IE the city. The state should be the next source of resources. The feds which are the furthest away, should be the last resort.

And yes, this does fit quite well in with the GP's position that ten states over shouldn't be funding the stupidity of another state unless if it the citizen's wishes through private donation. Sure the feds have a purpose but that purpose has sort of been expanded way beyond anything effective. If the federal government was downsized to the point it just provided military protection and general constitutional services instead of pork barrel projects in every state and bailing out the incompetence of others, you could probable drop the tax rats down to 10% across the board and make the difference up in the state taxes which would mean AZ pays for AZ, LA pays for NOLA and MD pays for Baltimore. This would most likely also provide plenty of job opportunities and the ability to increase salaries in which the poor states will become more comparable to the so called rich stated.

Re:what the hell?

[rhomp2002]

The question is not about rebuilding NOLA at all. The question is rebuilding it in a location that is at least above sea level. They could move the city 5 miles away and leave the port there and it would work fine. I have a friend in the general construction business. He is located in Arizona but he has a lot of contracts in NOLA. I asked him what would happen if there is another hurricane like Katrina. He said that even after he recommended building on higher ground the people went right back to where they got flooded out before, so a hurricane just filled his pockets. He tried to get it through their heads but it didn't sink in so he just gets more contracts out of it.

Re:what the hell?

[pcolaman]

Because congress won't repeal the law barring any further coastal drilling not already in progress

Re:what the hell?

[sumdumass]

It wouldn't be too hard to dredge the Mississippi river and bring the port inland where it isn't below sea level. You could most likely move the canals going through the 9th ward inland too and create a situation where only the docks are below sea level and just expand the city north creating a buffer zone with the 9th. They can utilize sea locks as well as artificial reefs to disperse storm surges to a more manageable degree.

Anyways, the point is that the port of New Orleans doesn't need to be where it is. It's there for historical reasons as well as cost factors. But you have to start considering the cost advantage of moving the city to something above sea levels and rebuilding everything every 3-5 years.

Actually, I'm a firm believer in the ability to engineer around mother nature. I think we could probably just improve the levy system and put a few more locks in place and hope that the local governments don't decide to funnel the funding to donors like what happened in 1995 when Clinton sent a shit load of money down to improve the levees. But there is really no reason why we can't engineer flood walls and housing that is built to withstand hurricanes. Florida already has a building code that does a good deal to limiting damage from storms. LA or more specificaly, NOLA could do the same. They could also take a clue from holland and basically make the houses floatable and anchor them with pylons at the corners so if something floods, the house simply raises until the pumps can take care of it.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

don't you know bill gates secretly has control of that volcano?

Re:what the hell?

[sumdumass]

The gulf has always been warmer then the oceans. This effect has been in existence long before global warming was on the radar of both the alarmists and the time lines they use to make their claims.

Whoever started the Katrina was because of global warming back in 2005 was doing nothing but attempting to scare people like you into believing them. There is a claim that global warming will eventually raise the ocean temps enough that it will impact storms. But we are far off from that projected point.

Re:what the hell?

[sumdumass]

It isn't the city thats in the way causing the price of oil to shoot up. About 25% of the world oil supply is pulled from the Gulf of Mexico. That number may be a little off now but that isn't important, it isn't an insignificant amount. Now, the hurricane has to go through the gulf to get to New Orleans which means the oil rigs need to be shut down and evacuated for the duration of the storm.

When you look at the shear size of the hurricanes in relation to the gulf, you quickly see that it can be as large as two thirds of the gulf as a category 3 or 4 storm. They are also unpredictable in that we can guess to where they are going but we or more lucky then accurate, we usually have two or three best guess routes but they could change at any time. Pretty much the entire Gulf of Mexico will be shut down until the storm makes landfall and moves far enough inland to not come back out. And then you have the problem if getting workers through the devastation and back out to the rigs, they have to inspect them for damage, start repairs if needed and then verify that a refinery or holding facility is availible to start pumping again. I believe most of them can off load into tanker ships if the regular facilities aren't availible but they can't operate and full capacity that way and it costs more to move the product around. Besides, you would have moved all the ships out of the area because of the storm just to move them back in which will take a while considering their speeds.

But yea, the problem isn't really with poor people living in a swamp that was pumped dry and about to be flooded once again. It is all the oil rigs in the path of the storm and the potential paths of the storm needing shut down to avoid the loss of life and spills that causes world wide fuel prices to increase. For the week or so they are down, we will lose roughly one quarter of the world production and when you mix speculators in with that, we get screwed pretty fast.

Re:what the hell?

[Looshi]

because it's their home and this isn't china where the government can forcibly move millions of people at their whim.

...yet

Re:what the hell?

[Dan541]

Many American's are slow learners, those who build homes in tornado valley are also examples of this.

Re:what the hell?

[rve]

There are places in the world where people built towns right on top of an active volcano. These people all had their reasons for this, they probably didn't have much choice. It would however be pretty rare for these people to be very smug about living on a volcano, and think their living on a volcano makes them somehow very clever and brave, and vastly superior to other people who had the misfortune of being killed or displaced by a volcanic eruption.

There is exactly one place in the world where people are smug about living below sea level right by the coast, where people feel the need to express a smug contempt for casualties of floods and hurricanes in other part of the world.

FYI the storm of 1953 was considerably less powerful than a category 1 tropical hurricane, let alone a cat 3 like Katrina.

Re:what the hell?

[Jedi Alec]

Wow, you really dislike the dutch, don't you?

And I didn't see anyone displaying smug contempt about casualties. I just wish a calamity like New Orleans would attract as much attention and funding as 9/11 did.

There are ways of preparing for calamities. The Japanese live in earthquake country, the Dutch below sea level, and there's plenty more examples to pick from. And considering New Orleans serves the same purpose for the US as Rotterdam does for a large part of Europe, there's a definite economic incentive. Add the cultural aspects for extra flavor.

Re:what the hell?

[sphealey]

This thread must really be touching a nerve for a group here - they are systematically going through and downrating every post that does not hew to the Radical Right line. Interesting and quite revealing in itself.

sPh

Re:what the hell?

[caluml]

because it's their home and this isn't china where the government can forcibly move millions of people at their whim.

Yet.

Re:what the hell?

[sphealey]

=== Do you expect the feds to show up when your house is on fire? Do you expect Washington to send a team down from Ohio when you need an emt? ===

People in Southern California, and throughout the Intermountain West, do. Or perhaps you missed all those Federal figherfighters, helicopters, water bombers, etc? Friend of mine who is a US Forest Service firefighter was on the helicopter just before the one that crashed in California two weeks ago. Sounds to me like 50 states subsidizing the decision of 1/5th of one state to build a city in a area of extreme fire danger. I am sure you will be recommending abandonment of Los Angeles here in a minute.

sPh

Re:what the hell?

[ShakaUVM]

You said it's not coincidence that two hurricanes are hitting New Orleans in 3 years. Apparently, you don't agree with Moore and the other Democrats' statements that God is on their side.

So... what is it, then?

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

and when at first contractors would work to bill for the repairs...when they finished, the govt. took so long to pay them back, well....that scared future contractors from working for the local govt. on credit.

Well, in all honesty, it sounds like the applicable local governments suck.

As a businessperson myself, I can identify this is a classic cashflow issue. While I can personally relate to the reticence of the individual contractors to float the government, that does not preclude the local government from solving this issue.

I will defer to your apparent knowledge of the details on the ground there, but the first thoughts that crossed my mind were for local governments to:

1. Advertise this issue during the bidding process and allow additional cost-plus bidding on projects to reflect the actual time-value of money for compensation on the project vs. when disbursement of funds would take place (simplest).
2. If the first is untenable/illegal, insulate contractors from this by having local gov contact financial institutions to get bonds/loans from them with the identified collateral of the federal reimbursement. Even if the FedGov wouldn't reimburse project amount + interest for delay before reimbursement (ie. if there were certain provisos against such?), the value to the community to get the money/have the projects done vs. losing them altogether would far outweigh the cost of 6-18 months (or whatever the delay is) of interest on such loans... not to mention the incentives to the contractors to actually work in the 'Gulf Opportunity Zone' or whatever it's termed in the Internal Revenue Code.

The wheels of government reimbursement grind slowly but surely (ask me how I know), and there are Ways Around It. I am not trying to pull a classic "slashot poster sees obvious solution to issue with inherent flaws that were overlooked by Experts On The Subject--news at 11", style comment here, but honestly, this doesn't seem to be an incredible impediment if local governments really wanted to work around the problem.

This and gp were posted anon because I already moderated in the thread.

Re:what the hell?

[sumdumass]

Wow.. Your lack of perception is startling. Your house on fire does not equal a forest fire. or does it?

And no, I wouldn't be recommending abandoning LA, I would be recommending that the state go in and cut fire lines with their own money and do controlled burns so the next time a forest or wild fire breaks out, it can be handles easier by local authorities. I would also recommend that residents control the growths around their homes so when a fire does pass through, they are looking at smoke damage instead of a pile of rubble. And for the record, in CA or any other state, the state and local communities take a fair amount of the burden for the fire service. The feds only step in on federal parks (hences the forestry service) which there are lots of in those areas, and when the state is out of their realm of abilities. Unless your living in a federal forest or park of some sort, the feds will not show up for your house fire. They will however, show up for a forest fire on their lands and they will show up when asked to by the states.

Re:what the hell?

[hoppo]

That doesn't mean we should have to foot the bill for reconstruction when it's a very bad idea to do so. You want to buck the system and live underwater? Do it on your own dime.

We live on, what, one of the 10 largest land masses in the world? It takes an incredible amount of hubris, when there is so much available land, to push back the sea for a few square miles more.

At the risk of sounding insensitive, your choices as a New Orleans resident should be to move or introduce yourself to your new neighbor, Aquaman.

Re:what the hell?

[drsquare]

Who says that entertainment has to be near the port? Either ship the workers in from somewhere like Baton Rouge, or move the port further upstream where it won't be flooded. The city of New Orleans doesn't have a divine right to exist.

Re:what the hell?

[drsquare]

No-one's forcing anyone to do anything, just don't come crying when you get flooded and no-one cares about you.

Re:what the hell?

[Sobrique]

There comes a point where subsidising idiocy is counterproductive.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently moved to New Orleans a month ago and already feel the sense of home and community in this city. For anyone to ask, "why rebuild and live there?", I think you need to understand that this is home for many people and the residents of New Orleans are extremly resilient and proud of their city, as they should be. To just be done with an area is absolutely ridiculous. The city has an extreme amount of history and there is no other city in North America with as much character. I am proud to say that I now live in New Orleans and I look forward to my return to the city regardless of the damages from Gustav.

Re:what the hell?

[Sobrique]

I see what you did there.

You should be ashamed.

Re:what the hell?

[cayenne8]

Interesting post, dunno if you'll see the reply, but, while your suggestions would work in normal circumstances...remember..they are trying to rebuild local utilities, fires stations, police stations, and general infrastructure so that people can come back to live.....so, at this point, there were not many people around to be able to tax or set bond issues for/with, etc...there was absolutely no money coming in to the local govt.s at all....so, the fed money was needed upfront in order to attract the populace back and allow them to rebuild themselves.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry, i ran out of points to help ya out in the rep-dem racism shithole up above.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT UP PLEASE!

and to the fascist fuckers downmodding every sane comment in this thread: please go fuck yourselves.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, well, you were already my friend from before this whole topic discussion, so at this point I don't care about the moderation. Thanks for your feedback/entertaining my ideas.

Back on topic: at that point, wouldn't it be something that the state government could step in to setup for bootstrapping purposes? One would assume this is also in their interest, and a state can float quite a deficit if necessary, which shouldn't affect the state economy significantly in such a case. Also, recall that the majority of Americans are still very sympathetic about Katrina. So, if additional legislation were necessary, ie. "Making Katrina Relief Actually Work Bill of 2008" would probably pass overwhelmingly (at least from my optimistic, non-LA resident, perspective).

Then again, cashflow really isnt that hard. You might have heard of H&R Block doing "refund anticipation loans", which are just a cashflow thing for 'normal' people. You get your money now, with their calculated tax refund as collateral. Further, a business' accounts receivable are actually an asset that can be sold. I could sell my business' invoices to a relevant collection business firm (not a 'break kneecaps'/destroy credit type thing), at a discount of n%, in order to get my money immediately upon completion of my projects (which ties into the first suggestion I made in gp). In the case of anticipated significant delays, then n will be larger.

As an alternative perspective, about "government wheels grinding slowly", I had a friend who effectively loaned money to the USAF to buy equipment for a direct USAF project they had budgeted for the next fiscal year but wanted to start right away. He charged interest points against the USAF on this over the loan rate he had to take out, but the USAF paid less than they would have overall had they delayed (ie. win/win). However, my friend also had to use his house as collateral. This wasn't a problem for the bank, especially because of the additional collateral of the previously-signed USAF contract for the next fiscal year.

Cashflow is completely different than having a positive balance sheet... then again, as a business, banks only care about the cash balance of your accounts. If you will entertain a possibly crass analogy (can't think of any other at the moment), a person can drown in a three inch deep puddle even if they are equipped with a charged SCUBA tank + relevant gear, if their regulator fails.

Re:what the hell?

[jvonk]

God, uncheck the fucking default "Post Anonymously". After all that, I am proven a dumbass.

Re:what the hell?

[Wooky_linuxer]

Hey, I just saw your sig... lol!

Being a president does imply an obligation to interfere in a major disaster relief. If he can do something useful by staying in Washington, so be it, as long as he actually does something. The real problem back there was that neither the federal or local government dealt with the problem as they should, and hence all the hoopla about Bush not giving a damn about NO. But there is nothing a candidate can do going there; they hold no power (yet). It is just different from being a president.

Re:what the hell?

[Mr. Slippery]

Do you expect the feds to show up when your house is on fire?

If you will read more closely, you will see that the poster to whom I was responding didn't specify "the federal government", just said "zero assistance from the government."

And if my house was on fire due to failure of a system built by the federal government to maintain trade routes for interstate commerce, fsck yes, I would expect federal aid. The New Orleans disaster wasn't Katrina, it was the failure of the levies that were built by the feds as part of an effort to keep the Mississippi navigable.

Federalism is no excuse for the failed federal response to Katrina.

Re:what the hell?

[HornWumpus]

Don't forget the bulk port and the oil terminal. They will also survive.

Other then that you are spot on.

I expect the simple laws of economics will make NO a decent place for a time.

The true scumbags won't be able to afford to live in NO with the housing shortage.

Sucks to live in Houston (but that's not new or different).

Re:what the hell?

[ultranova]

Who says that entertainment has to be near the port?

Economic reality. Shipping lots of people long distances every day is not cheap, and to get them to agree to it you need to either pay them more or to settle for the desperate.

Either ship the workers in from somewhere like Baton Rouge, or move the port further upstream where it won't be flooded.

Like I said, long commute is uneconomical; and moving the port upstream limits both the size of the vessels that can reach it and how many can fit there simultaneously.

The city of New Orleans doesn't have a divine right to exist.

Yes it does, as it is blessed by the American God of Capitalism, the Almighty Dollar himself.

New Orleans has tax money poured on restoring and protecting it because the politicians decreed so; the politicians do as their corporate overlords will; and the corporate overlords bow to the will of their Lord who's high priests they are. So yes, New Orleans has a divine right to exist, profane - even unholy - as that divinity might be, but nonetheless one worshipped the world over nowadays.

Re:what the hell?

[shanen]

What is it? It is that I think I have sufficient reason to regard you as a moron. Therefore I am asking you to designate me as your foe so that I can ignore you better. My time is valuable and limited.

Do you need explicit instructions how to use that part of /.? Quite possible that most of those poorly implemented features were the work of one of your fellow morons, the clueless pudge.

Re:what the hell?

[Money for Nothin']

Because American taxpayers (including me) are suckers enough to subsidize flood insurance nationwide, creating the moral hazard of greatly reducing the incentive not to live there -- or, at least, to build in a more hurricane-sustainable way.

Thank whoever said "insurance companies won't pay for these poor persons' flood-ravaged homes, so now government (read: taxpayers) must do it!" That's more of a Democrat's line...

Re:what the hell?

[dbIII]

I'm currently halfway through Simon Winchester's excellent book on the 1906 earthquake so that's why it was in my mind. I do not think I have anything to be ashamed about. Seattle, San Francisco, New Madrid (USA), Rabaul (PNG) and a variety of other places face a future disaster and deal with it in different ways.

Now the very bad pun would definitely be something some people would be ashamed of.

Re:what the hell?

[ShakaUVM]

>>What is it? It is that I think I have sufficient reason to regard you as a moron. Therefore I am asking you to designate me as your foe so that I can ignore you better. My time is valuable and limited.

It's called the English language. Heard of it? Didn't pay attention in English comprehension class or something?

You didn't answer my question, you just responded with an ad hominem attack.

OH! You're a liberal! I get it now.

Re:what the hell?

[sumdumass]

Lol.. No, it was a failure of the local government. The feds built it but the state took over control back when they demanded control of the interstate highway system. The corupt government of Louisiana had taken funding allocated by Clinton and diverted it to a bridge project and an extra canal that most say wasn't needed in order to repay contributers with padded government contracts instead of improving the levy system.

That has changed now, the US army corp of engineers is back in full control now and they will determine how funding is applied.

And if you were to know anything, it wasn't federalism that caused Katrina to be the way it was. It was the posse comitatus act that stopped the feds from stepping in sooner. This isn't the case now because it has been amended to allow the feds to determine that a state isn't capable or effectivly handling an emergency and step in without regard to their requests for assistance. But it was federalism that allowed the democrats in power in the 20 years before Katrina to siphon money for the levies off for other pork projects that were more or less designed to repay contributors for helping get them elected. Make no mistake, Katrina should have never happened but the failure started long before the storm and they started long before the feds were legally allowed to get involved.

Re:what the hell?

[Mr. Slippery]

The feds built it but the state took over control back when they demanded control of the interstate highway system.

The American Society of Civil Engineers faulted the Corps's levee design, and the Corps has admitted their failure. That has nothing to do with any actions taken by the state.

Nor had the state taken over flood control. The Army Corps of Engineers was still working on flood control projects in the area, though they were massively underfunded.

In 2004, USACE requested $11 million for the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection project; Bush's budget requested only $3 million. Congress increased the amount to $5.5 million. In 2005, the Corps requested $22.5 million - Bush, $3.9 million, and Congress approved $5.7 million.

Investigative articles by the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of the Iraq boondoggle as a reason why funding for the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project dried up in 2003. $250 million in crucial projects was left incomplete, including work right at the site of the main breach.

To add insult to the injury, 35 percent of the Louisiana National Guard had been deployed to Iraq, thus making them unavailable to, you know, Guard that part of the Nation.

The failure of the levvies, and the lack of resources at the state level to deal with it, were the results of deadly incompetence at the federal level.

But it was federalism that allowed the democrats in power in the 20 years before Katrina...

Democrats in power for 20 years? Where?

On the federal level, we had a Republican in the White House from 1980-1992 and 2000-2008. From 1994 to 2006, there was GOP control of the House. 1994-2001 and 2002-2006, Republican control of the Senate.

At the state level, Louisiana had a Republican governor 1980-1984, 1991-1992, and 1996-2004.

Re:what the hell?

[sumdumass]

The American Society of Civil Engineers faulted the Corps's levee design, and the Corps has admitted their failure. That has nothing to do with any actions taken by the state.

Nor had the state taken over flood control. The Army Corps of Engineers was still working on flood control projects in the area, though they were massively underfunded.

I didn't say the levie's design wasn't at fault. I said that congress under the Bush and Clinton administrations sent money down to repair some of them years before Katrina was ever a thought in anyone's eyes. Instead of fixing and repairing known issues, two of which were cited as reasons for the breach that flooded the 9th ward, In fact, money had been going to NO since the 1960's and more recently for repairs since the 1980's. And yes, the state, well local parishes have control of some of the projects. In 1996, the East Jefferson Levee Authority took part of the money and created an entirely new canal. The MRGO canal was another distraction of funds as well as two bridges that didn't exist but all the sudden was needed. Now, you will have to look around to find information on those, they used to be in the Wiki pages on the levy system along with links to sources but that seems to be far to complexed and accurate for wikipedia to keep. Here is some food for through though, (PDF warning) The amount of funding has increased since 1996 by about 1.5 billion and the amount of projects have expanded to a point that the corp of engineers claimed they couldn't start any new major projects. BTW, the state provides a portion of the funding in which they have aserted control over.

In 2004, USACE requested $11 million for the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection project; Bush's budget requested only $3 million. Congress increased the amount to $5.5 million. In 2005, the Corps requested $22.5 million - Bush, $3.9 million, and Congress approved $5.7 million.

In 2004, 4.19 billion was requested for the New Orleans flood levies and a total of 4.57 billion dollars was approved. Now, when you break it down to specific wards and vicinities, your probably right. But when you look at it as a whole, you quickly see that the pork is just rampant. One of those pork projects was an entire canal that wasn't needed.

Investigative articles by the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of the Iraq boondoggle as a reason why funding for the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project dried up in 2003. $250 million in crucial projects was left incomplete, including work right at the site of the main breach.

Yes, I have read that article. Or should I say those articles. They all say something along the lines of some local person made the claim. Some investigative journalism there. But the reality of it is that the funding for the entire NOLA area flood system between 1996 and 2005 increase by 1.51 billion dollars at a yearly average of 150 million more each year and in all cases except for 1996, congress approved more then each president asked for. You can find an easy to read table in the above PDF showing this.

o add insult to the injury, 35 percent of the Louisiana National Guard had been deployed to Iraq, thus making them unavailable to, you know, Guard that part of the Nation.

That is actually irrelevant. The governor failed to even use the national guard until days after Katrina hit. Having 35% more there sitting on their thumbs waiting on the problems to become worse would have made no difference at all. In fact, FEMA had control of national guard units from other states in excess of the 35% number away and they had to wait for the governor to sign the papers for them to get started. The feds brought in 17,200 active duty and guard troops bringing the total in the are

Re:what the hell?

[smellsofbikes]

Denver, Salt Lake City, Boise, Alburquerque, Phoenix, Cheyenne, Reno, all come to mind. No fault lines, no tidal waves, no hurricanes, little risk of forest fire or serious floods. Maybe tornadoes in a couple cases, but those are two orders of magnitude smaller.

Re:what the hell?

[srvivn21]

Well, in that case...we need to stop sending all that tax money to the Federal govt., and start keeping it to ourselves to fund our needs and rebuilding zones.

And...one big help for LA, would to be to just take posession of all those nice oil rigs/drilling operations and leases for sure from the Federal govt. and keep all that lease and royalty money for ourselves, rather than having it go into the US general funds. With that, we could MORE than take care of our rebuilding problems.

Don't be so sure. Since 1984 Louisiana has been a beneficiary of Federal spending, receiving more than $1.20 per tax dollar contributed since 1988. Source http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html (Flash app linked. Base PDF available from http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf). I'm not sure if the leases from oil rigs is accounted for in this research, but according to the state's DNR page (http://dnr.louisiana.gov/min/petlan/petlan.asp) there's a whole office division dedicated to tracking such leases. Further, according to the Federal Bureau of Land Management, http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls98/98PL1-3.PDF, 744,782 acres (or only 2.6%) of Louisiana is Federally owned as of 1996. I don't imagine that changes much, so the relative age of the document shouldn't be of concern. Perhaps The Fed is hoarding the most lucrative part of the state... According to http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls02/pls3-17_02.pdf, only 65,161 acres are in a "Producing" status. Huh. There are thirteen other states that have more Federal Lands in a Producing status...

Perhaps by upping the property taxes (5th lowest in the country), you could better cover the real cost of living there. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/31.html

For what it's worth, I know full well that my state of residence (Alaska) is also a beneficiary of the Union, on parity with Louisiana.

Re:what the hell?

[toddestan]

If New Orleans gets flooded every few years, why was Katrina newsworthy ? Why is this new storm newsworthy ?

For the same reason that the Olympics are newsworthy? People are interested in it, even if it happens every few years.

And natural disaster will happen anywhere, not *might*; it's simply a matter of time.

I can build a house smack in the middle of tornado alley and have a pretty good chance that it won't be destroyed by a tornado in my lifetime. I can't say the same thing about a house in New Orleans.

Re:what the hell?

[PopeRatzo]

As for "blacks" she's meet Sec State Rice

my point, exactly.

Re:what the hell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tornado::Hurricane
Cap gun::Bazooka

No tornado ever caused billions of dollars in damage.

In addition..

[Anik315]

Here's a hurricane music video...

Re:In addition..

[Anonymous Coward]

And the obligatory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y-ezKlKY9k

Re:In addition..

[Dogtanian]

Here's a hurricane music video...

Here's another one! I doubt this band are popular in New Orleans...

News for nerds huh?

[keeboo]

Because a tree falling in your house is so nerdy.

Re:News for nerds huh?

[MouseR]

That frickin falling tree will knock out your INTERNET ACCESS dweeb!

That's fricking news to some of us!

Re:News for nerds huh?

[DingerX]

You must be new here.

Re:News for nerds huh?

[mrbah]

I guess you don't know about all that "science" stuff that allows us to figure out where a hurricane is going to go and how strong it will be.

Re:News for nerds huh?

[ComputerGeek01]

Hey, I'm interested in this kind of stuff. It shows what The US Geological Survey guys can do in real time. Also it is interesting to those nerds concerned about getting to work on time, do you remember all those facts about how much US oil comes out of the gulf? I am SO glad I get a bus pass from where I work. You have to realize that there is more to nerds then PCB's and software.

Re:News for nerds huh?

[b1t r0t]

Uh, it's not the USGS, it's NOAA.

Please turn in your nerd card immediately.

Re:News for nerds huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is the USGS too. I'd tell you to turn in your library card, but then how could you improve your reading skills?

Re:News for nerds huh?

[maxume]

Link from the summary: http://water.usgs.gov/waterwatch/gustav/

Re:News for nerds huh?

[laejoh]

Naa, we're talking about a Disaster Area. Making it nerdy would be like this:

The City officials of New Orleans are fans of the Guide. They advice regular concert goers that the best sound balance is usually to be heard from within large concrete bunkers some thirty-seven miles from the stage.

Re:News for nerds huh?

[cryptodan]

I guess you don't know about all that "science" stuff that allows us to figure out where a hurricane is going to go and how strong it will be.

A lot of factors can change the course of any storm and hurricane. For example, Tropical Storm Hannah off the cost of Florida. If it were to become a cat 5 storm and move fast enough it would push the weaker storm Gustav more westward towards Texas and Mexico or pull it in and devour Gustav's energy and what not.

Re:News for nerds huh?

[Barumpus]

The tree takes out your internet access? I am on Comcast with packet filtering and bandwidth restrictions. That tree is a blessing you insensetive clod!

Re:News for nerds huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

These comments are the best, especially when they're not anonymous. Because now everyone knows you're a fucking idiot.

Re:News for nerds huh?

[hugecabbage]

Where it's going, yes. How strong it will be, not so much

Re:News for nerds huh?

[OriginalArlen]

All the Gustav-related nerdiness you could ever wish for over at the Wunderground. Shame the data's not live RSS streaming feeds or somesuch... unless anyone would like to whip up a 'NOLA catastrophe II: this time it's personal" feed? Where's Spider when you need him?

Re:News for nerds huh?

[lbgator]

USGS and NOAA have an agreement to share information and data. USGS installs sensors (permanent and temporary stream gauges) which NOAA and other agencies leverage for their predictive analysis.

I'M NOT LEAVING NEW ORLEANS

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless a FEMA limo drives me out this city. I'm Black, I demand it! If not, I'll stay and loot!

Re:I'M NOT LEAVING NEW ORLEANS

[Anonymous Coward]

If that weren't racist, it would be really funny. Or, if I weren't so politically correct, that would be really funny.

Re:I'M NOT LEAVING NEW ORLEANS

[Anonymous Coward]

Lighten up dude.

Re:I'M NOT LEAVING NEW ORLEANS

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait until that KKK lady, Palin, get to you. She tortured and fired her brother-in-law for much less, think about what she can do with a nigro-son-of-satan...

Re:I'M NOT LEAVING NEW ORLEANS

[houstonbofh]

Unless a FEMA limo drives me out this city. I'm Black, I demand it! If not, I'll stay and loot!

Why mod Funny? I am sure this is happening. I am sure there will be chopper rescues on CNN. And I am sure we will pay for people who refuse to take care of themselves. (Not just those unable to) We saw it in Houston the first time, and most people I know used up all the compassion they had then...

Re:I'M NOT LEAVING NEW ORLEANS

[lattyware]

Here in Lincolnshire, UK, we are in another flood-zone - all below sea level. Recently, when the area was flooded, we were paying for people who have no house insurance and got flooded. My question is, why the hell should I be paying for insurance, when people who don't just get me to pay it with my taxes instead?

Re:I'M NOT LEAVING NEW ORLEANS

[Anonymous Coward]

OH NOES!!111! TEH NEGROES ARE COMING TO HOUSTON!!!

Better stock up on ammo you racist prick. Can't have anyone with skin darker than yours in your city.

Re:I'M NOT LEAVING NEW ORLEANS

[Anonymous Coward]

OH NOES!!111! TEH NEGROES ARE COMING TO HOUSTON!!!

Better stock up on ammo you racist prick. Can't have anyone with skin darker than yours in your city.

Words of someone who has never had to live among blacks. The media has sure done a good job convincing you that we're all somehow equal.

Re:I'M NOT LEAVING NEW ORLEANS

[Anonymous Coward]

Except those darker-skinned negroes actually bring a lot of crime and poverty with them: http://www.colorofcrime.com/.

Of course, if you don't believe those "racist" claims, then you can crunch the data yourself from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports in which arrests are broken down by racial group.

Re:I'M NOT LEAVING NEW ORLEANS

[Anonymous Coward]

Numbers are racist, you insensitive clod.

Re:I'M NOT LEAVING NEW ORLEANS

[houstonbofh]

OH NOES!!111! TEH NEGROES ARE COMING TO HOUSTON!!!

Better stock up on ammo you racist prick. Can't have anyone with skin darker than yours in your city.

Amazing on how you cry racism without even knowing my race, and when my posts said nothing about race. (You do understand that I quoted someone else, don't you?) So if someone ignores another merits, and dismisses them totally based only on race, what is that called again?

Wait...

[wamerocity]

There must be an ulterior motive, because I heard President Bush didn't care about Black people.

Re:Wait...

[nawcom]

There must be an ulterior motive, because I heard President Bush didn't care about Black people.

heh, atm (Score:2. Flaimbait) I wonder how high a flaimbaiter can go? :-P

Old "doesn't care about black people" reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIUzLpO1kxI)

For more information

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the wikipedia article.

Oh for goodness sake...

[Richard_at_work]

Get the freaking hint - New Orleans is in one of the worst possible places, stop spending federal money rebuilding it. If people want to live there, let them suffer the entire burden of living there! If you want to spend federal money, spend it on relocation allowances and get people permanently away from the problem!

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[Zerth]

About 100,000 people got the hint last time(unless it's taking them 3+ years to walk back from Texas), so 2 or 3 more large hurricanes in close repetition should have the place cleaned out.

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[mrbah]

Mandate that everybody who lives in a region with a high risk of natural disasters buy health, life, and property insurance. That'll drive most people out in a heartbeat.

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[Tranzistors]

To where, exactly?

And since you are so interested in federal expenses, haven't they paid in enough?

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[Tranzistors]

Isn't government like a mandatory insurance company?

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[maxume]

A lot of federal dollars after Katrina went into buying land and building parks (in areas that are not suitable for housing).

Basically, it is an important port, so there needs to be some sort of city there. Big parts of the city were rebuilt twice in the 20th century, so don't be shocked if it gets rebuilt several times in the next 100 years.

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[Pecisk]

Sure, move city which was standing here for some...well, 200 - 300 years? And probably this citation from Wikipedia article about city won't hurt:
The city is named after Philippe II, Duc d'Orléans, Regent of France, and is one of the oldest cities in the United States. It is well known for its multicultural and multilingual heritage, cuisine, architecture, music (particularly as the birthplace of jazz), and its annual Mardi Gras and other celebrations and festivals. The city is often referred to as the "most unique" city in America.

It is like asking Los Angeles to move just because it stands in the place where earthquakes are very strong and frequent guests. Duh. And they even don't have such early warning as Neworleans do.

What about finally dealing with levee's system which description doesn't include words 'might not work when class four storm hits the city'? Wow, you need money for that. No no no, money for war in Iraq, money for creating no working 'No fly'list, money for spying on citizens while not knowing why actually you have to do that.

It is pathetic. US is great country (without any pathos or irony, I really have big respect), but somehow it's government manages to avoid solving real problems and instead actively creates imaginary ones. Probably because when you have to deal with real problem, you have to act. There is no PR for you to help, there is no back offs possible. You have to ride it trough. You have to plan action plan and backup plan before disaster strikes.

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[Richard_at_work]

And since you are so interested in federal expenses, haven't they paid in enough?

The cost of rebuilding after Katrina is estimated to be in the region of $80billion to $100billion. If thats going to happen twice a decade, then quite simply no, they have not 'paid in enough'.

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[Majik Sheff]

That depends on your definition of insurance I suppose. I sure as hell know that I can't and shouldn't depend on the government for ANYTHING.

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[linzeal]

Get a hint, with good Civil, mechanical and maritime engineers you can adequately manage far greater storms. The problem with New Orleans was that we had been spending money building fancy bridges, stadiums and government buildings down there that could weather a 4+ hurricane all the while ignoring the levees and other flood control systems that protected 90% of the city. Now some of those homes are going to be destroyed when that hurricane rolls over but even that we can build for, what we need to require for residents rebuilding this time is that they build structures that are made to withstand hurricanes, floods and moisture; the last one because if you have ever owned a house anywhere humid the first thing to go is untreated wood and even treated wood goes after 25 years or so outside. They have solutions out there already, and if we mandated that if you live in a hurricane alley you build something like that we would not have to have these mass evacuations. What we really need is a president who is not scared of spending on such a system that would protect New Orleans against hurricanes, expand our research into earthquakes for the west coast and other disasters.

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[Anonymous Coward]

STFU noob, New Orleans and the surrounding towns is the world's busiest port. It's the *world's* 5th largest port.

Think about that. Just let it sink in for a moment.

New Orleans controls a massive amount of your daily life, regardless of where you live on the globe. You can't just say "hey, lets close down the world's 5th largest port" and wash your hands of it, things are way more complicated than that.

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[jopsen]

I guess it depends on what country you live in... :)

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[Free the Cowards]

Just because there was a massive failure of engineering and emergency management during Katrina does not mean that New Orleans is a bad location. The city was nearly destroyed last time, not because of where it is, but because the flood control structures were inadequate.

In 1906 San Francisco was nearly destroyed due to an earthquake. Did they decide that San Francisco was a bad place for a city and abandon it? No, they rebuilt it and made sure that the new city could withstand an earthquake without being nearly destroyed. New Orleans ought to get the same treatment.

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Mandate that everybody who lives in a region with a high risk of natural disasters buy health, life, and property insurance.

How about mandating that insurance companies must actually pay for damages and stop trying to find a reason not to.

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[TwistedSymmetry]

Excuse me, but how many times has the federal government had to rebuild New Orleans? Katrina and Gustav, for all we know, are a string of bad luck. (I don't recall any hurricanes devastating New Orleans prior to Katrina, in recent years). You're making a very weak induction here. Of course, the other possibility is that global warming has made hurricanes much worse, in which case you might have an argument. Nevertheless, we don't know enough yet to say that there will be another devastating hurricane in another few years, as your argument assumes.

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Mandate that everybody who lives in a region with a high risk of natural disasters buy health, life, and property insurance.

But that's "socialism"!

And given that the Democrat's health plan is to force everyone to have health insurance (and is being called that and willfully confused with socialized health *care*), I doubt it will fly.

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[Attila Dimedici]

Money was allocated to build levee's before Katrina, but local politicians (state and city) decided that they had "more important" things to do with it (read give the money to companies run by their cronies). Since Katrina, at least one of the projects to improve flood control around New Orleans was held up in courts over environmental issues.

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, closer to 200,000, or nearly 44% of the population has failed to come back. I'm imagining that if this storm is just as bad, it will be even less.

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[Otefred8]

I would really like to see just a few of the player-hater-posters here be victims of a hurricane/mudslide/[insert your favorite natural catastrophe] only to be told by inconsiderate people on /. that they should be allowed to suffer because of their apparent lack of capacity to not live where they live!?

Especially, when one takes into consideration that about 20% Louisiana's population is under the poverty limit, it is simply inexcusable to be making these sort of comments - people don't "just move" to another area?! (see http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/food_health/health/hunger_food_security/Faces+of+Poverty+in+Louisiana.htm for further demographics on Louisiana)

Lastly I find it completely beyond understanding and frankly rather sad for /. on the whole that the parent post (and a few of the equally cold and ignorant replies) has been voted '5, Insightful'..

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[DJNW]

Kid, there's hedges in most countries older than New Orleans. Hell, there's plenty in the UK older then the USA.

As others have noted, when the repair bill becomes sensibly expressable as a fraction of a trillion dollars, that's the universe giving you a big bloody hint to go away and play boats somewhere else. Let the place become a museum.

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[TenBrothers]

That's Right! Stop spending federal money to get people to live somewhere that isn't suitable for human life! Start with the removal of all submarines! And yachts! And any other floating living spaces. After that, eliminate funding for the ISS, all moon missions, all rover missions and anything searching for extraterrestrial life.

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. If you buy a property using a loan (show me someone who can buy property without a loan and I'll show you someone for whom this will not be a deterrent) then the bank requires you to buy property insurance (and flood insurance in NO). Part of the insurance premiums goes toward protecting the bank in the event of your injury/death, part goes toward paying for damages. I assure you, the premiums are high enough. There is a problem getting insurance companies to pay out when they are supposed to, but that is a different topic. So essentially, these insurances *are* mandated, yet people still want to live there.

So why? There is risk of losing everything you own and even death. NO is an economically important city, but that wouldn't motivate individuals to live there. What does motivate people to live in NO is that it is *home*. And as homes go, NO is unique. Every time I hear a call for the dismantling of a great and historic American city (one of the precious few we have), I wonder what the speaker would do when faced with a similar decision. What would you do if it were your family, friends, neighbors, property, investments, etc? Why does anyone in the Mississippi river valley continue to live there even though there is some kind of major, life/property threatening flood almost every year.

The government continues to support NO because it is economically important to the country (if you don't believe that, take a trip and drive up the river road between New Orleans and Baton Rouge), and people continue to live there because it is home.

Re:Oh for goodness sake...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not quite that simple. Insurance premiums (if you can even get insurance) will be ludicrously high. Ask someone who lives in the state of Florida what their homeowner's insurance premiums are. Most of the big insurance companies won't even cover a florida resident anymore.

Having lived the horror story myself, I know that the insurance industry is a big scam when it comes to homeowners insurance in disaster prone areas and they will do everything they can to get out of having to pay you when you need it most.

Evacuation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no you di'int!

Lessons of Katrina?

[Pecisk]

I really just curious - do feds or anyone from government did their work _after_ Katrina? Or it was like - ohh, shit happened, my bad - and life moved on and no one prepared for "second coming"?

I hope Gustav will pass easy. That is shame that so beautiful city have to struggle to survive again in such short time.

Re:Lessons of Katrina?

[Fred_A]

I really just curious - do feds or anyone from government did their work _after_ Katrina?

Of course they did, they're highly trained professionals after all.
They put up signs

"No hurricanes allowed beyond this point"

However they didn't expect Gustav and forgot to translate them in German.

Re:Lessons of Katrina?

[Pecisk]

Usually I don't reply to answers of my post, but this is good laugh :) Great joke in such desperate time.

Re:Lessons of Katrina?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL xD

Re:Lessons of Katrina?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really just curious - do feds or anyone from government did their work _after_ Katrina?

Of course they did, they're highly trained professionals after all.
They put up signs

"No hurricanes allowed beyond this point"

However they didn't expect Gustav and forgot to translate them in German.

"Nein Hurrikan uber platz"

Re:Lessons of Katrina?

[ravenshrike]

It's Swedish you insensitive clod! http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Gustavus-Adolphus

Re:Lessons of Katrina?

[whoop]

Work is being done on the levies by the Army Corps of Engineers. One representative yesterday was on the news saying they should have the levies ready for a serious hurricane by about 2011.

Oh, and he mentioned something about getting out of the city, but I don't believe him. I'll just wait this one out...

Re:Lessons of Katrina?

[TeknoHog]

Gustav does sound Swedish to me too (I'm Finnish) but it's probably a more widely used Germanic name. Check out Gustav Mahler for example. I also know German people named Nils and Björn, even though I'd always regarded these as Swedish names. It's probably because Sweden is so close to us both culturally and geographically.

Conversely, me and many other Nordic people have been mistaken as German in some countries :)

Re:Lessons of Katrina?

[Arancaytar]

> German

Wait, so now it's our fault you get wet, huh?

The Shock Doctrine

[slashflood]

Make sure to read Naomi Kleins book "The Shock Doctrine" or at least one of her online articles: The Shock Doctrine in Action in New Orleans.

Re:The Shock Doctrine

[HertzaHaeon]

Also make sure to read some criticism against The Shock Doctrine. It's full of errors and outright lies. Take a look at this video series, for example. Yes, I know it's Cato, but give it a chance. I was skeptical at first, but now I don't think Klein is someone I want on my side at all.

Re:The Shock Doctrine

[blind biker]

That's an eye opener, thank you.

Well, actually I am not completely surprised, either. I came to expect anything from humankind.

Re:The Shock Doctrine

[slashflood]

Sorry, but you can't just rush over it by saying "Yes, I know it's Cato". The Cato Institute is a neo-liberal/neo-conservative "think tank" and lobby group. Of course they're trying to attack Naomi Klein: "Since 2002, the Cato Institute has awarded the Milton Friedman Prize".

Re:The Shock Doctrine

[Anonymous Coward]

"First posted on the Huffington Post"

OK, I can safely say that it's safe to completely ignore, it's just liberal propaganda.

Re:The Shock Doctrine

[hanssprudel]

The Cato Institute is a neo-liberal/neo-conservative "think tank" and lobby group. Of course they're trying to attack Naomi Klein

And your point is? By the same token: Naomi Klein is a leftist, so of course she is trying to attack free economies. But that isn't what undermines her argument, what undermines her argument is that it is false.

Read Norberg's full report here:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9384

Re:The Shock Doctrine

[darjen]

Please forgive me for not being impressed about her anger over taxpayer funded housing. She should be angry at the government for heavily distorting the markets down there. Why should I have to pay for the stupidity of people who choose to live down there?

Re:The Shock Doctrine

[darjen]

Also, Robert Higgs beat her to it over 10 years ago.

Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government

Re:The Shock Doctrine

[Free the Cowards]

Remember kids, you should always evaluate any argument based on who's making it, not on what it says.

Re:The Shock Doctrine

[TwistedSymmetry]

But that isn't what undermines her argument, what undermines her argument is that it is false.

An argument can't be false. It can only be invalid (i.e. fallacious) or based on false premises.

Re:The Shock Doctrine

[Anonymous Coward]

Naomi Klein is a leftist, so of course she is trying to attack free economies

On a related note, it's been shown that from 1948-2005, income growth has grown, on average, significantly higher under Democratic presidents than under Republican presidents.

Damn those leftists.

Re:The Shock Doctrine

[dbIII]

I thought it was the US right that hated a free economy? They are the ones blocking cheap sugar, steel, beef and cars that don't fall apart.

Is this allowed in the US?

[sveinungkv]

Are the mayor really allowed to do this? Last time New Orleans had an evacuation there where looting of the abandoned properties. Should it not be up to the owners to them self decide if staying behind to defend it is worth the risk or not?

Disclaimer: I am European. I don't think the government would have any problem doing it here. But are not Americans more concerned about their liberty (for example to risk drowning and looters) then we are?

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the mayor really allowed to do this? Last time New Orleans had an evacuation there was looting of the abandoned properties. Should it not be up to the owners themselves to decide if staying behind, to defend it, is worth the risk or not?

Disclaimer: I am European. I don't think the government would have any problem doing it here. But are not Americans more concerned about their liberty (for example to risk drowning and looters) then we are?

You're welcome. (Results not guaranteed, others may disagree, I am not an English teacher, nor English Major, consult your resident English expert, your mileage may vary, my English may not be standard, but neither is US English).

Disclaimer: English is my first language, however, that doesn't mean shit when my partner knows more about English grammar then I do (and English isn't their first language).

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[introspekt.i]

In America, your mileage can vary when it comes to powers of local governments. In theory, as long as they don't interfere with the constitution and other overarching federal rules, they can vary quite a bit...though I digress.

Typically emergency powers like evacuation orders falls within the branch of the executive powers like the mayorial types or the governor types. I'm not sure of the exact specifics of this in New Orleans, but I am pretty sure that the Mayor can tell the city staff (firefighters, cops, city workers) to stop working (at the very least..he may be able to issue evacuation orders). Regardless, if he can tell the city staff to shrink itself down to a skeleton crew, that should be reason enough for anybody to gtfo of a city like NOLA.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[schnikies79]

It's a bit of a misnomer. They can't and don't force you to leave. They sweep the area and strongly suggest you leave, but they won't make you. In Florida at one time they (Charlie) had you list your next of kin so they knew who to contact.

It basically means that if you decide yo stay, you are on your own.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[satoshi1]

Well, think about it this way: How many people will be upset at the governor/government if NO evacuation is ordered? A TON of people will be because this country is full of idiots who can't think for themsleves and NEED the government to think for them.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple answer is no they can not force you to leave, "Mandatory" in this context means your free to do what you want but here is your free ride, if you don't leave you it's your own ass.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[betterunixthanunix]

Our system works like this: elected leaders may declare a state of emergency and evacuate an area, but if the citizens feel that it was unjustified, they can sue the official later. In this case, I doubt there will be many lawsuits, since the people of New Orleans were beginning to evacuate on their own anyway.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're welcome. (Results not guaranteed, others may disagree, I am not an English teacher, nor English Major, consult your resident English expert, your mileage may vary, my English may not be standard, but neither is US English).

Disclaimer: English is my first language, however, that doesn't mean shit when my partner knows more about English grammar then I do (and English isn't their first language).

It certainly isn't.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[DrFalkyn]

They can call it a 'mandatory' evacuation, but they can't actually make people leave, not without declaring martial law. All it means is that if you want to stay, you can't depend on the city services to bail you out.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[kent_eh]

And that's exactly the language they are using.
When the mayor says in a press conference "if you are foolish enough to stay, you're on your own", then most people generally will act to protect themselves.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

I'm surprised they dun't tell the Democrats to not only stay, but to take down the boards on the windows, and to go surfing.

After all, it would've helped Bush.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think it can happen under states of emergency, and a weather disaster qualifies. When there was a huge snowstorm a few years ago, I think it was 10" of snow in a state that barely gets any at all. If you were on the road without a good reason, you were ticketed. Why? Because emergency personnel would have to risk their own lives digging you out. They had enough problems already before having to deal with people that thought they could expect to be dug out of their own mistakes.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[schnikies79]

Even if they ticket you, you are still not being forced. They don't put you in the police car and take you back home or off to jail. In New Orleans, they won't drag you out of your house and put you on a bus.

Earlier this year I was pulled over during a snowstorm state of emergency just like you stated. Since I work in whats considered a necessary service (medicine) they let me go.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mandatory evacuation is a misnomer, they aren't knocking down doors and putting you on a bus, but it's sort of a martial law situation. Basically, you can stay if you want, but no municipal services are promised. The city isn't responsible for what happens to you if you stay, and if you're caught looting, you'll probably be shot and left to rot, or at the very least, taken to prison.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[pongo000]

A "mandatory evacuation" doesn't mean you'll be dragged from your home if you decide not to leave. It simply means you will be left on your own, and there are no guarantees the city/parish/state/federal authorities will be able to assist you if you have an emergency.

Despite that, most rescue personnel would *still* risk their lives to help those who stayed behind.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[pongo000]

And you'll be subject to whatever curfew is put into place, which might further limit your options in the event of an emergency...

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[kestasjk]

if you decide yo stay, you are on your own.

The governors exact works

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[kestasjk]

(except he said "to" and not "yo", of course)

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

A TON of people will be because this country is full of idiots who can't think for themsleves and NEED the government to think for them.

a TON of people?

So that's about 1 average American citizen?

I kid, I kid!

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[cowscows]

There was looting, but it wasn't anywhere near as bad as the media reports may have led you to believe. It's a concern, and some people will stay because of it. But even though the Katrina situation wasn't as bad as you may have heard, there will still lessons learned, and the police/national guard should be less busy rescuing people from flooding and have more time to safeguard property after the storm.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[ravenshrike]

The only error was then instead of than. The rest of it was correct.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[Teun]

(and English isn't their first language).

It certainly isn't.

Apparently you assume the OP is either Moslim or Mormon using the pluraltheir for partner where a regular western person would use her. :)

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[bigbigbison]

I don't know about hurricanes since I live in a land-locked state in the midwest but I do know that during winter they can say that it is illegal to be on the roads when the conditions are bad enough. However, in practice that doesn't mean that they stop every vehicle on the road and arrest people. It does mean that if you are out on the road and get stuck then you might get a fine for it. I would imagine that it is a similar situation for hurricane weather.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it wasn't. "their" was also incorrect.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[W.Mandamus]

Actually, people have been evacuating the New Orleans area since Friday. Contraflow traffic started Friday nigh (contraflow consists of state troopers block the incoming lanes of major roads and use them for outbound traffic). Mandatory evacuation means that hospitals and nursing homes have to be evacuated. Every time that happens at least a dozen people die during the evacuation. As a result New Orleans (which has the major hospitals in the region) goes mandatory later then areas to the South, the idea is to control traffic and prevent a jam. More time in transit = more dead people. The areas major hospitals are in New Orleans.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the OP used "partner knows", thus her/his would have been correct.
I did not assume anything regarding polygamy.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[JustMeToo]

I am originally from Florida. I was in Ft. Lauderdale when Hurricane Andrew hit, and there was looting there as well. My take on mandatory evacuation is this...If everyone was made to evacuate then there would be nobody left behind to do the looting. After the storm, when the looting usually occurs, anyone in the area without permission should be arrested. This would have made me a little more secure in evacuating.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

They also won't put you at the top of the list of rescue efforts and if they do need to rescue you it will be on your own dime.

I've run in to that a few times with winter storms and closed roads. Basically there was a state trooper posted at a safe place before the closed road who stopped me and told me that the road was closed and what would happen if I continued on. I thanked him and he wished me luck as I continued on.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

In a mandatory evacuation, residents are not physically forced to leave, but are subject to arrest outside their houses if a curfew is imposed. Mr. Nagin also warned that anyone who chose to stay would not be able to rely on public agencies for emergency assistance

Officials made an effort to soothe concerns about looting. Mayor Nagin noted that with 1,500 to 2,000 National Guard troops coming to New Orleans, the city would have twice as much law enforcement protection as it had in the days after Hurricane Katrina. In all, 7,000 members of the Louisiana National Guard were mobilized Friday.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[slothman32]

Grammar alert:

1. It should start out as "Is the mayor," or possibly, "Are the mayors".

2. "Where" should be were".

3. I believe there should be 2 "there"'s but I not sure.

4. It seems funny to read but I think it is right; "are not" could be "aren't".

5. I made several errors my self so you don't need to correct them.
Such as periods inside the quotes instead of outside them.
Maybe the semicolon as well.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, so? Your link is irrelevant. Maybe you should read it and understand it.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheeple need shepards.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[ShakaUVM]

It's a bit of a misnomer. They can't and don't force you to leave. They sweep the area and strongly suggest you leave, but they won't make you. In Florida at one time they (Charlie) had you list your next of kin so they knew who to contact.

It basically means that if you decide yo stay, you are on your own.

Don't worry, it'll still be Bush's fault when people don't leave, and drown.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[sasha328]

I am a "volunteer" in a State Emergenccy Service (similar to Civil Defence org) in Australia where we are the "statutory authority" during storms, floods, etc, and in an Emergency, the person in charge of the local area has the authority to declare an evacuation. In that case, the Police who "report" to the SES during such an emergency, will forcibly remove people. Now in 99% of cases, sensible people tend to move when they are told to anyway, so force is not required.
The system works when there is a very clear demarcation of responsibilities and command structure.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[dbIII]

In Australia I'm fairly sure that you can be forcibly removed in such a situation. I'm suprised that it isn't the case in the USA since you get serious fires in California and other such disasters where temporary evacuation is necessary.

To conspiracy theorists - we still do have a lot of guns on nearly every rural property, just not military ones even if it is more firepower than the average policeman - it is just not relevant to the issue.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[CodeBuster]

So don't dig them out or rescue them from their mistakes. If there is time for a warning and message to the effect of "we suggest that you leave, but if you choose not to then you are on your own" then nothing more is needed. People should not be forced, even if you think that their decision to stay is foolish; it is their life to lose after all. There might possibly be extenuating circumstances if they are obviously not of sound mind or have minor children, but in most cases adults should be allowed to make their own decisions.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[CodeBuster]

Why not just warn people and tell them the truth? Most will heed the warning of professionals and those few that don't may be killed. Perhaps it is just me, but why shouldn't an adult be allowed to make his own decision? It is his life to risk or lose after all. All that you, as a State Emergency Representative, should have to do is to inform them of the facts and then offer them a ride out of the area if they want to leave but cannot otherwise make it. If they still want to stay after that, then I for one would have no problem leaving them behind even if I thought that they would likely be killed. The use of force to make that 1% leave is more repugnant than any other alternative IMHO, including leaving them to take their chances when I believe the odds are against them.

Re:Is this allowed in the US?

[Atario]

So why are you still here?

There are plenty of shit-hole countries around the world where the government's contact with its people is tenuous at best, and you are, as you seem to wish, on your own in all circumstances, and no one helps. Go on, tough guy, go live out in the wild frontier. After all, you're not stupid, are you?

New Orleans is a major port

[Vandil X]

As much as I think living in hurricane zones is a bad idea, New Orleans is a major US port that has to have onsite personnel to manage shipments going in/out of the Mississippi river.

That personnel has to have a nearby place to live, shop, & recreate.

If New Orleans does get smashed up again, I would hope they could do as old European cultures did: build the new city on a layer above the old one, using the old city as both foundation and a riser.

Alas, construction of that magnitude is far too costly and takes far too long. Ironicly, its probably cheaper to just repair/rebuild the existing site after each major storm and just hoping they get a decades-long break again.

Remember, everyone. This is the work of the Lord.

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

Hurricanes are caused by homosexuals, apparently.

Or Republicans.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/28/hagee-ministries-no-comment-on-tropical-storm-gustav/

NYT sucks

[Sir_Lewk]

I tried to RTFA, but I couldn't because I wasn't registered. Don't give me that bugmenot crap either.

You can't defeat nature

[Smivs]

So New Orleans is likely to be flooded yet again, but this is not a unique occurance. Florida is often trashed by hurricanes, and here in the UK much of our housing is on flood-plains, and some of our villages are crumbling into the sea due to coastal erosion.
You can't beat nature, but we've all got to live somewhere, and there is normally a very good reason for a settlement to be where it is.
It's a balancing act. Sometimes you need to put resources into sustaining a town/city, and elsewhere this may be inappropriate. The big question is 'Who decides?'

Re:You can't defeat nature

[lewko]

The big question is 'Who decides?'

Obviously you don't watch Fox News.

Re:You can't defeat nature

[houstonbofh]

So New Orleans is likely to be flooded yet again, but this is not a unique occurance. Florida is often trashed by hurricanes, and here in the UK much of our housing is on flood-plains, and some of our villages are crumbling into the sea due to coastal erosion. You can't beat nature, but we've all got to live somewhere, and there is normally a very good reason for a settlement to be where it is. It's a balancing act. Sometimes you need to put resources into sustaining a town/city, and elsewhere this may be inappropriate. The big question is 'Who decides?'

Screw that. The bigger question is who pays for bad decisions? Since I actually have a job, more often than not, it is me.

Re:You can't defeat nature

[v(*_*)vvvv]

but this is not a unique occurance.

Right. City under water. Happens every two weeks.

here in the UK much of our housing is on flood-plains

Here is New Orleans, most of our city is protected by levees.

there is normally a very good reason for a settlement to be where it is

Maybe because its thought to be safe. If the whole city flooding is not a unique occurrence, normally that is a very good reason for *not* settling there.

 

Re:You can't defeat nature

[W.Mandamus]

Much of the historic area of New Orleans (French Quarter, Garden District) is on high ground. The lower ninth ward (where flooding was the worst) was developed in the early 1950's by out of state developers. A good number of the most flood prone area's were developed by out of state developers. We just went 50 years without a major storm, few realized how dangerous the areas were.

Re:You can't defeat nature

[snoogans126]

Here is New Orleans, most of our city is protected by levees.

It's real possible you might be forced to re-evaluate this statement in the next few days. Good luck to you. I hope you're far from home by then.

Re:You can't defeat nature

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't beat nature,...

The Netherlands begs to differ.

Re:You can't defeat nature

[v(*_*)vvvv]

I was being sarcastic. Call me crazy, but I am pretty sure the folks in New Orleans thought they were safe. Thought people would be quicker to arrive to help. Thought what happened was a once in a life-time occurrence.

Here in Japan most of the building are earthquake-proof, but that is not something to say when there is an earthquake elsewhere where thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives are at risk.

Not to mention the high possibility, if not certainty, that this crazy weather is the result of human activities, and calling it all "natural" is seriously downplaying this whole mess some of us are trying to solve.

Call me crazy, but I hope I wasn't the only one offended by your post modded +5 insightful.

Re:You can't defeat nature

[v(*_*)vvvv]

edit.

your post modded +5 insightful.

*the* post modded +5 insightful.

Sorry about that.

Re:You can't defeat nature

[OriginalArlen]

But if you didn't pay taxes to ensure a stable and reasonably equitable society (where 'reasonable' is a rough working consensus across tens of millions of people), you wouldn't have that job in the first place.

Re:You can't defeat nature

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry but none seems to bring up the nederlands example. It's a whole freaking country and it's under sealevel. But they have learned their lessons and have the best anti-flood infrastructure in the world. Having seen the levees of New Orleans in a documentary and the ones in the Nederlands when i was there i must say that the ones in New Orleans are children's toys. If someone wanted to save lives he/she would have began building levees triple in size of the ones that let Katrina in. Unless he/she expects for a couple more hurricanes to "clean the place up" as someone here suggested and then build the new infrastructure when "important" people (see higher income class people) come in to live in the washed out areas.

Re:You can't defeat nature

[bill_mcgonigle]

It's a balancing act. Sometimes you need to put resources into sustaining a town/city, and elsewhere this may be inappropriate. The big question is 'Who decides?'

I'll let the coastal geologists correct me, but when I was in LA last time I read a bunch of info-signs at rest stops talking about coastal erosion. IIRC, the coastline is expected to be at the north end of (the former) Lake Pontchartrain by the end of this century, putting the French Quarter 25 miles out to sea.

If we're going to spend the money, let's spend it moving the historic buildings somewhere inland and documenting extensively what will soon be a memory.

Re:You can't defeat nature

[hesaigo999ca]

For a long time I have thought of the impact of detonating vast amounts of firepower inside a tornado or a hurricane would have if they were placed strategically inside them. China seemed to have some success at the Olympics, but i wonder what if we tried, what could we loose?

Re:You can't defeat nature

[Roger W Moore]

here in the UK much of our housing is on flood-plains

No, much of the recently built housing is on flood plains because the land was cheaper...hmmm...I wonder why?

Rock you like a hurricane

[Anonymous Coward]

The obligatory YTMND from Katrina's time.

I guess you completely missed Hurricate Katrina

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time New Orleans had an evacuation there where looting of the abandoned properties.

Nice way to completely gloss over the fact that there were houses turned at 90 degree angles off their foundations, that people starved to death, drowned in >9 feet of storm surge, and weren't able to return to the city for weeks and lost everything they owned.

The threat to human life from one of these storms is beyond measure. Last time the citizens of the city decided "hey, let's ride out the storm", we couldn't even send in the national guard to save them for 5 days.

So sure, if it's not legal, all the mayor then needs to do is get it declared a state of emergency, declare martial law, and then send out the troops to enforce a mandatory evacuation. It's easier if people comply and get the hell out of there so they don't die.

Re:I guess you completely missed Hurricate Katrina

[Anonymous Coward]

My memory was that there was very little storm damage and storm surge- Katrina's storm damage was far greater in Mississippi.

It was the failing levees that wrecked NOLA.

Re:I guess you completely missed Hurricate Katrina

[Free the Cowards]

The threat to human life from one of these storms is beyond measure.

No it's not. The expected deaths can be quite easily measured. The worst-case scenario is quite obvious: there is no way that it could possibly kill more than the entire population of the planet. The more realistic risks are also well within the realm of measurement.

I appreciate that these things are dangerous and that you want to make them sound dangerous, but please be more accurate about them.

Re:I guess you completely missed Hurricate Katrina

[QuasiEvil]

So sure, if it's not legal, all the mayor then needs to do is get it declared a state of emergency, declare martial law, and then send out the troops to enforce a mandatory evacuation. It's easier if people comply and get the hell out of there so they don't die.

Why should it be the government's job to forcibly save me, if I were to live there? Seriously, they've warned me in the strongest language possible. At that point, if I want to stay, that should be my choice. Live or die. By the same token, though, I have no expectations that they will come help me if the situation proves more than I can handle. Nor should I - they told me to leave.

Put me up as the libertarian type that strongly believes government should not be able to make me leave my property, no matter what. They have a responsibility to inform and warn, and to provide assistance for those trying to follow their directions, but beyond that, I want them to leave me the hell alone.

Re:Remember, everyone. This is the work of the Lor

[pottymouth]

Or the evil wishes of Democrates

Or morons

Oh, aren't those all the same thing....

Ellen

[kanweg]

Is Ellen Degeneris still living in New Orleans, then?

Bert

Re:Remember, everyone. This is the work of the Lor

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Michael Moore.

(And I think he's got a case. The toots he makes after All-You-Can-Keep-Down-For-A-Dollar night at the local tacqueria probably DOES kill the ozone layer and contribute to global warming).

Real-time Transcriptions...

[technix4beos]

We do have a pressing need for personnel who can type fast, have a good ear for "American" dialect, and is willing to spend several hours transposing into IRC.

Please head to the linked wiki (either wiki.interdictr.com or gustavwiki.com ), or directly to the irc.freenode.net and join #interdictor

Cheers, see you there.

Re:Real-time Transcriptions...

[bigbigbison]

Maybe I'm a bit dense but I looked at the internictr link and read your post but I still can't tell what exactly is it that you are asking people to transcribe and why?

Re:Real-time Transcriptions...

[Arterion]

They need people who can transcribe "American" dialect like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omVrfdXQ2sQ

And to all those who thought Ray Nagin was stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

See. He's learned. Woo hoo...

And why the hell do Nagin and Landreaux get a pass for what happened three years ago? Mississippi got hit just as hard as Louisiana, and got just as little help from the feds.

The Second Flush

[Anonymous Coward]

That finally pushes the turd out of the toilet.

The mayor's statement:

[dumbunny]

"that will be one of the biggest mistakes you can make in your life"

It's interesting how the mayor has to overstate the odds of a disaster occurring to get people to do what's in their best interests. If he were actually say the truth, like, "at this point there's a 25% chance that the path and intensity of Gustav will cause a surge that will cause the levees to fail," people would ignore the evacuation orders, even though they now know what a levee failure entails. So now, there's a 75% chance that the levees will hold and next time he'll have to say something like, "this will be the very, most colossal mistake you can make in this or any other life," in order to get people to move.

The other day, my 8-year old had the audacity to tell me, "well, I crossed the street by myself once, and I didn't get hit," so I sat her down and explained acceptable risk, how to calculate expected values, damage quantification, and how many trials it would actually take before a statement like that would validate my letting her cross the street alone. Her eyes glazed over after a few minutes, but at least she'll think twice before crossing the street again. Going forward, every stupid risk she takes is going to be another math lesson, and I'll make her write down the probabilities and calculate the expected damages before she gets out of time out. Hopefully, she'll grow up to be both safe and smart, unlike the idiots who elect to stay behind in NOLA and (probably) live to convince others to ignore evidence and go with their guts.

Re:The mayor's statement:

[Super_Z]

Don't use math as punishment - she will only grow up hating it and probably end up as a hairdresser.

Re:The mayor's statement:

[Anonymous Coward]

> Don't use math as punishment - she will only grow up hating it and probably end up as a hairdresser.

Like her father...

Re:The mayor's statement:

[fyoder]

Don't use math as punishment - she will only grow up hating it and probably end up as a hairdresser.

If I had mod points, I'd mod that insightful. It applies to anything good used as punishment, from push-ups to practicing scales on the piano. Don't train kids to have an aversion to what's good for them.

Re:The mayor's statement:

[Maestro485]

Don't use math as punishment - she will only grow up hating it and probably end up as a hairdresser.

Bullshit. She'll grow up to be a dancer.

Then let economics rule

[Anonymous Coward]

If we can't move New Orleans to higher ground because of economics, then we shouldn't have to spend billions of taxpayer money on rebuilding the city. If there is such a strong business case for keeping the city and port right where they are, then business ought to be able to pay to keep the city there, not the taxpayers. Right now we have a false economic equation that relies on the government to balance the equation. Since New Orleans is below sea level and sinking more than an inch per year, the problem is only going to get worse.

God really really really wants this turd flushed

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously.

Take a fuckin' hint.

fat mercs!

[Anonymous Coward]

Blackwater are gonna get so fat after looting all that chicken and watermelon that they won't be able to carry the TVs out of people's doors.

"Hurricane Relief" sites already in the works...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.dshield.org/diary.html?storyid=4954 (dshield.org)

"Here we go again - Hurricane Relief Sites

Remember three years ago when hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the US Gulf coast? On the day Katrina hit New Orleans hundreds of donation sites appeared online, many if not most were scam sites. Well this time around it looks like the people who like to register domain names in anticipation of a storm's arrival have already started registering them for Gustav and Hanna. I'm not suggeting that they are up to no good, but simply pointing out that the rush has started and we need to make sure our users are aware of the potential for scam sites appearing online in the next few days."

Storm of the Century??

[Anonymous Coward]

They called Katrina "The Storm of the Century" too. I guess that was the 1904 to 2004 century.

This is the 2008-2108 century.

Re:Storm of the Century??

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a statistical size measurement.

Big Brother tag? Why?

[wtfispcloadletter]

Can anyone explain why this has the "big brother" tag? Is it simply because of the evacuation order? If so, why?

mandatory evacuation

[nurb432]

Should be my choice to stay or not. Sure i might die, but its MY property, my life, my choice.

I thought this was America?

Re:mandatory evacuation

[schnikies79]

You can stay and they won't force you to leave.

They won't help you either. You're on your own.

Re:mandatory evacuation

[nurb432]

Oh, id not expect help. But tell that to the sheriff when they come to remove you. In the past they have drug people away anyway.

Re:mandatory evacuation

[Blakey Rat]

So one sheriff abusing his position is equal to ALL OF AMERICA'S PROMISE IS A LIE THE CONSTITUTION IS TOILET PAPER!!!

There's no middle ground for you?

Re:mandatory evacuation

[nurb432]

its not just 1 sheriff, its the system in general.

And my world is based on black and white, either you are good or evil. No shades of grey.

Bush caught flatfooted...

[Anonymous Coward]

...nice try, liberal...

What a difference two years makes

[Anonymous Coward]

Two years ago:

"Well, those idiots deserve what they got! When there's a massive hurricane coming and you live below sea level, you run! Good riddance to 'em!"

This year:

"ZOMG NOES teh gummint is trying to tell someone what to do! This is a violation of rights! FNORD BIG BROTHER FNORD FNORD they should stay there just to spite them! That'll show 'em!"

And we wonder why people don't listen to us geeks...

Re:Remember, everyone. This is the work of the Lor

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

"Flamebait?" Seriously?

Only on Slashdot can I point out the hypocrisy of a bloated gasbag of a preacher and immediately get stomped by the modhammer. Meanwhile, the Michael Moore fart joke gets tagged as "insightful."

They're giving mod status to some reeeeally qualified people around here...

Thank God!

[underexcellent]

Thank God the Mayor finally got off his rear and did something! Maybe FEMA won't have to try and do everything again! If you all recall... the mayor did little to NOTHING last time (Katrina). Now he is actually making them get out. Maybe he might actually bus them out with his own resources... city buses maybe? Nah. He might leave that stuff to the national government... even though it is a STATE problem. *Sigh* some things might never change.

Sigh

[amdurak]

It is truly saddening to read some of the comments. You write about wanting to displace people just because New Orleans is below sea level. You say that people are themselves responsible if they continue to live in a city which is below sea level. Let me remind you that there are locations in the Netherlands which are more than two times below sea level compared to that of New Orleans. New Orleans is of course much more prone to storms than the aforementioned place but I do not see why technology could not solve this [reinforcement] issue. New Orleans is after all an important city.

Re:Sigh

[papabob]

Because the last time a hurricane hit the Netherladns was... uhh... never? The fact that it's deep below sea level is not what makes new orleans problematic, but its proximity to one of the few places in the world that have big big storms.

Ok, katrina was the first big one, but now is coming the second one, and maybe in five years we'll see the third and so on. I call it basic survival instinct to leave and put your family in other place.

Re:Sigh

[maxume]

Does the Netherlands fund their flood control with money from the rest of Europe?

Most people aren't talking about wanting to displace people, they are talking about preferring not to pay them to stay in place. New Orleans is an important port, and it needs to be there; I think you would find that most of the people who posted 'saddening' comments would be perfectly fine with the port taking care of flood control and charging shipping traffic for it.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

because it's the rest of paying for them to stay in their "beloved city".

Re:Sigh

[DerekLyons]

It is truly saddening to read some of the comments. You write about wanting to displace people just because New Orleans is below sea level.

That's Slashdot for you - ever willing to trample on other people, but hypervigilant against being even lightly touched themselves.

Re:Sigh

[cowscows]

It's an expensive proposition, the sort of thing that you really need a federal government to handle. But more importantly, whether it was a good idea or not, decades ago the federal government agreed to be responsible for the flood protection (In exchange for Louisiana allowing massive destruction to its coast). Katrina showed that the federal government did not live up to their part of the agreement, and that should be reason enough for the federal government to fix it.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

And who pays for the technology? If relocating the residents is cheaper than fixing the levies, then isn't relocation the logical choice? I'm all in favor of people having the freedom to live where they choose. But if they're living on someone else's dime, I think they rightly should give up that freedom. If you're living in public housing, it is only logical to allow the public housing be moved to whichever area is cheapest to sustain your life.

Re:Sigh

[Free the Cowards]

Katrina was hardly the first big hurricane to hit New Orleans. Seriously, you know where New Orleans is, right? The city gets hit by a hurricane with fair regularity. This graphic shows you the tracks and strengths of a few major ones. Katrina was not even particularly strong by comparison. It was much weaker and passed much farther away than, for example, Camille, which was a category 5 when it hit and was very nearly a direct hit. The only thing that made Katrina special was that the city's flood control measures completely failed. But this failure says a lot more about the flood control measures that were in place at the time than it says about the suitability of the location or the size of the storm.

Re:Sigh

[MtViewGuy]

However, in the Netherlands they suffered their Katrina moment in the 1953 when a series of storms killed 1,800-plus people, forcing the Dutch government to go on an enormously expensive program (Deltaworks) building numerous water barriers to prevent that type of flooding--a program that took 30 years to complete.

Re:Sigh

[ColdWetDog]

The only thing that made Katrina special was that the city's flood control measures completely failed.

The 'big thing' about Katrina is that literally billions of dollars from the federal government were wildly mismanaged both before and after the hurricane. It was a poster child moment for how not to use government assets.

We're going to see some action this time, me thinks. It appears that the Republican Convention is going to be put on hold and Bush, McCain, Palin and a host of other politicos and functionaries will descend on New Orleans. My personal theory is that this giant mass of localized hot air will force Gustav to Florida or Texas. In either case, no one will care and the Republicans will be credited for something even the Chinese government couldn't do - change the weather.

Re:Sigh

[Free the Cowards]

The 'big thing' about Katrina is that literally billions of dollars from the federal government were wildly mismanaged both before and after the hurricane. It was a poster child moment for how not to use government assets.

Nope, sorry. Billions of dollars of federal funds get wildly mismanaged all the time. Major cities get flooded due to a failure of engineering pretty much never. When you're deciding what the "big thing" is, pick the one that's extremely rare and killed a whole lot of people.

Re:Sigh

[antientropic]

Because the last time a hurricane hit the Netherladns was... uhh... never?

The Netherlands doesn't get hurricanes, but it has a long history of disastrous storms, the last one being the 1953 flood (over 1800 casualties, about the same as Katrina).

The solution for New Orleans is not to give up on living there but to fix the damn levies. Surely it can't be that hard for the richest country on Earth.

Re:Sigh

[Teun]

Does the Netherlands fund their flood control with money from the rest of Europe?

Presently Europe is contributing to diverse infrastructure but most of the Dutch flood defences were constructed well before Europe started to take an interest.

Most people aren't talking about wanting to displace people, they are talking about preferring not to pay them to stay in place. New Orleans is an important port, and it needs to be there; I think you would find that most of the people who posted 'saddening' comments would be perfectly fine with the port taking care of flood control and charging shipping traffic for it.

You miss the concept of Macro Economics, the fact that this port is hugely important is the main reason it has grown to what it is now, this is a direct payment by the port for the city.

What has been lacking is a government with a forward view to plan a flood defence capable to withstand the flooding.

The Federal decision to pay for all natural disasters, even those that can be prevented like these floods, is probably a major factor in this obvious deficiency in local, State and Federal planning.

Another gross oversight I see in the US is the insistence to (re)build in a non storm resistant fashion, classical wood frame is just not done in areas where you can expect hurricanes and tornado's.

Re:Sigh

[rcw-home]

Let me remind you that there are locations in the Netherlands which are more than two times below sea level compared to that of New Orleans. New Orleans is of course much more prone to storms than the aforementioned place but I do not see why technology could not solve this [reinforcement] issue.

A couple differences: Parts (10-20%) of New Orleans are settling an inch a year, while parts of the Netherlands are settling a tenth or a quarter of an inch a year. 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level, so efforts to preserve it will have steady national support. Only a small section of the Mississippi river delta is below sea level. Still, towns in the Netherlands are in fact being told they can't build anything new. And there are mitigation efforts that work for river flooding that won't work for hurricane flooding, such as floating foundations. All in all, the Netherlands has good reason to take their situation much more seriously than New Orleans does, and it shows in what they have done.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Major difference: The Netherlands are not effected by tropical cyclones.

Re:Sigh

[maxume]

Paying for the city and relying on the federal government for flood control is a different thing than the port being responsible for flood control. I was indicating that most of the people that are critical of the federal spending would be perfectly o.k. with the latter.

Re:Sigh

[Renraku]

Technology COULD solve it, just as technology COULD solve a lot of problems.

But it isn't solving this one, and as long as the US Government/Army Corps of Engineers/Civil engineers/corporations are funding the building/repair of flood management devices, those devices will continue to be substandard, fail, and give people a false sense of security.

Instead of trying to stop the floods, for example, why not design the area to be able to better handle them? Mandate flood-resistant buildings. Mandate flood-compatible street design. Mandate flood-resistant housing. Don't like it? Don't live there. Have to live there? No flood insurance for you.

Re:Sigh

[Ciarang]

Never? Or 1953? http://www.minbuza.nl/history/en/1953,1953.html

This is Andrew, not Katrina

[Xenolith]

The forecasted track for Gustav is very similar to Andrew (1992). If I recall correctly, no formal evacuation of New Orleans was done for Andrew. Looks like we are having a Katrina induced over-reaction.

Re:This is Andrew, not Katrina

[snl2587]

As has been stated, the fact that New Orleans is below sea level makes any hurricane extremely dangerous. I also saw this morning that the levees aren't exactly up at full strength, and so the people near them were evacuated.

If you want an overreaction, look at how Florida handled the recent tropical storm. We got rain, and that's about it.

I have a feeling you live in an area not affected by hurricanes. If you did, you'd likely be singing a different tune about this one. I'm usually fairly complacent when it comes to big storms hitting Florida (we're pros at this by now), but given the circumstances, I think the evacuation was a good idea.

Re:This is Andrew, not Katrina

[Xenolith]

There is a subtle difference. Andrew made landfall 20 miles WSW of Morgan City. The current track of Gustav is for it to pass right over Morgan City. So that could make a difference for New Orleans. For the record, I was living in Slidell, LA when Andrew hit.

Re:This is Andrew, not Katrina

[jo7hs2]

While the overall tracks are fairly dissimilar, the track for Gustav does appear fairly close to where Andrew eventually made landfall. That doesn't mean that they are overreacting. They appear to have UNDER reacted in 1992, in light of what happened with Katrina. Gustav: http://my.sfwmd.gov/sfwmd/common/images/weather/plots/storm_07.gif Andrew: http://www.hurricaneadvisories.com/andrew92.html

Re:This is Andrew, not Katrina

[W.Mandamus]

Well I tend to agree, a Category 3 going to hit a fair distance from the city. On the other hand Katrina weakened a number of levee's. The question is "do you believe the corp when they say they have fixed the damage." I think the number of folks getting out of dodge show what people thing about those levees.
Also there are some disturbing forecasts that, that thing might get up to a 4 or 5. Better to just go ahead and get out then have to be pulled off your roof by the coastguard.

Re:This is Andrew, not Katrina

[Xenolith]

For Andrew. the sustained winds in New Orleans never reached hurricane strength. It was a good non-evacuation. For this storm, the current forecast is a 40% chance of hurricane force winds in New Orleans. Levees should be able to sustain a Category 1 hurricane, which is what New Orleans will get.

Re:This is Andrew, not Katrina

[Eil]

I invite you to have a look at the NOAA's predicted track for Gustav and then tell me it's an over-reaction. It's going to hit New Orleans almost square-on tomorrow morning. The hurricane is not predicted to be as strong as Katrina (Katrina was a very strong Category 5 while Gustav is looking to be about a 3), but it's still a fucking hurricane and it's going to cause damage no matter what. Obviously they're going to make a big deal out of it anyway because Katrina is the best example in recent history of the consequences of being unprepared. You're going to fault them for trying to do better this time?

Re:This is Andrew, not Katrina

[Xenolith]

Actually my original post is based on that graphic. The eye will pass about 80 miles SW of New Orleans. Andrew passed 100 miles. With that track, the most New Orleans will face is Cat 1 force winds. I personally would prefer to be out of town during that. But this will not cause nearly the destruction in New Orleans that Katrina did. If Katrina didn't happen, we would be doing a voluntary evacuation, not mandatory.

Re:This is Andrew, not Katrina

[Solandri]

Katrina was category 3 when it made landfall. The reason it was so destructive was because it was a huge storm. Hurricane force winds 240 miles across, tropical storm force winds 440 miles across. Some of my European friends were criticizing the U.S. response as deplorable for a developed nation. Until I pointed out that if it had hit the UK, the hurricane force winds would've easily covered all of Wales. If it had hit Germany, the tropical storm force winds would've covered the entire country plus some of its neighbors.

Re:This is Andrew, not Katrina

[Anonymous Coward]

And you'd bet the lives of others on that?

Re:This is Andrew, not Katrina

[dbIII]

Not necessarily a bad thing. In Cuba there are apparently well organised evacations every time a large storm comes close. Whether you hate Cuba or not and whether it actually happens like that it has to be said that it is a good idea.

Re:This is Andrew, not Katrina

[Xenolith]

If my confidence was high, yes.

Where is "safe"?

[anyGould]

Where in the world *isn't* there a natural disaster waiting to happen. If it isn't hurricane, it's general flooding. If not flooding, then earthquakes. If not earthquakes, then wildfires, or tornadoes, or whatever your local flavor of emergency is. Make sure you're willing to pay for your emergency before you decide you don't want to pay for theirs.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[Wonko the Sane]

That is why the federal government shouldn't be in the disaster insurance business.

Let private insurers charge market rates based on their own risk analysis.

Unless the disaster was caused be the federal government, or by an invading army people should buy their own insurance. If the people of a particular state decide to subsidize insurance then they can work that out themselves.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[pcolaman]

Yeah because we all know that Insurance companies have our best interest at heart. I know people here in Florida who do not live in flood zones who now have to pay in excess of $10k per year on insurance for their house because of companies like Allstate jacking people over. The Governor of Florida actually had to step in at one point and freeze insurance rates because people were being taken advantage on a large scale. I may not completely trust the Federal Government to manage disaster relief in the most efficient manner, but I trust them a hell of a lot more than private companies who are trying to pay as little insurance claims as possible.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[Troed]

Where in the world *isn't* there a natural disaster waiting to happen

Some parts of northern Europe, at least. It's actually a bit boring.

(Every now and then there's a storm that brings down a few trees. We do call those "disasters")

Re:Where is "safe"?

[The Anarchist Avenge]

Minnesota?
We're not near any fault lines, volcanoes, etc... and unless someone builds in a *really* stupid location, they're pretty much immune from floods too. As for massive wildfires, well, we have so many rivers and lakes here that we're never really more than a few miles from a source of water.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[QuasiEvil]

Seriously, try Colorado Springs, east of the mountains but west of where the big tornadoes start forming. Aside from being target #1 if nuclear war breaks out, we're pretty safe from any sort of natural disaster.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not near any fault lines...

Minnesota has plenty of fault lines and they are active. The last significant earthquake was a 3.1 in 1994, but there are hundreds of earthquakes in Minnesota each year. The biggest on record was a 5.0 in 1861. We haven't seen a "big one" in Minnesota, but if we ever do we are hosed because our buildings (with a few exceptions, like federal government buildings) aren't designed to withstand them.

...volcanoes...

Fair enough, but we are downwind of the Yellowstone supervolcano.

...and unless someone builds in a *really* stupid location, they're pretty much immune from floods too.

Except there are lots of people who *have* built in those stupid locations.

As for massive wildfires, well, we have so many rivers and lakes here that we're never really more than a few miles from a source of water.

Which doesn't entirely help...

And, to top it off, we get tornadoes that are literally as wide as entire towns and on occasion like to gobble those towns up.

And we also face pretty severe storms even when there are not tornadoes. Storms capable of downing tens of thousands of trees and removing power from homes for up to a week.

Minnesota is pretty safe relative to New Orleans, California, Seattle, etc. But we're not completely immune to huge disasters.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[The Anarchist Avenge]

Source on the earthquake info? It seems that while we're *affected* by quite a few fault lines, they aren't located in the state itself.

I thought about including Yellowstone, but decided against it. If that thing ever does blow, the entire world is fucked. Including it -although reasonable- would pretty much destroy the nice little discussion about safe places, since nowhere is safe.

Except there are lots of people who *have* built in those stupid locations.

So? I'm not gonna tell someone that they can't build inside a volcano, but it's their own fault if they do.

Which doesn't entirely help...

Have you ever seen firefighters fight wildfires? Only having to fly a minute to refill a water bucket is pretty damn nice. (I'm looking at you, California)

Tornadoes as wide as towns? Maybe if your "town" has a population of 3. My extended family lives in St. Peter, and they got nailed by that bad tornado a decade or so back, since then? Nothing.

My point wasn't that we're invincible, but rather that, in comparison to most places, we're pretty fracking safe. Yeah, we get straightline winds once a year or so, but when New Orleans is getting reamed by hurricanes several times a year, lutefisk starts to look pretty good.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[Tal0n]

Calgary, Alberta. It's raining and cold right now. That kinda sucks.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[Jardine]

Seriously, try Colorado Springs, east of the mountains but west of where the big tornadoes start forming. Aside from being target #1 if nuclear war breaks out, we're pretty safe from any sort of natural disaster.

Well that and all the weird shit that comes out of the Stargate.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[SupremoMan]

Maybe not Natural, but isn't Minnesota in danger of being invaded by Canada? ;)

Re:Where is "safe"?

[moortak]

Yes, but major snowstorms can have the same effect.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[hemorex]

This sounds great, and in general I'm all for privatization. However, one phenomenon I'm seeing in my area is that most, if not all insurance companies, are simply dropping coverage for the highest risk areas. The ones that still do have of course increased their rates, but the possibility of payment on a claim is exceedingly dubious. Now, the great issue here is that many of the people in this area are working for low wages for a variety of industries. They do not have any hope of being able to afford litigation should their insurance company choose not to pay. Relocation may be nearly impossible, as they simply may not have the liquid assets to move to another area, and industrial jobs are not likely to pay for relocation. What do you suggest these folks do?

Re:Where is "safe"?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, it is true, in many places there is a natural disaster waiting to happen - but you have to take into account frequency. Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans only 3 years ago, and now we have another evacuation of the entire city!

Yes disasters happen in other cities in the US, but not this often and not on this scale.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[Wonko the Sane]

After the emergency response to a disaster, the federal government should provide relocation assistance instead of rebuilding assistance.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[blind biker]

Where in the world *isn't* there a natural disaster waiting to happen.

That would be Finland. No (absolutely none) earthquakes, no floods (if there are any, they are extremely limited), no hurricanes, no extreme weather (same note as for floods).

Re:Where is "safe"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Sweden.
The only thing I have to worry about are the rabid mÃÃse around here.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[kamochan]

Helsinki, Finland, Europe. It's raining and cold right now. That kinda sucks.

For some reason, that seems to be the common denominator for the safest areas: raining, cold, sucks.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[ultranova]

Where in the world *isn't* there a natural disaster waiting to happen

Some parts of northern Europe, at least. It's actually a bit boring.

Our disaster waiting to happen isn't natural. We call it "Russia". Based on recent events, I'd say that we don't have much to wait anymore.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[themusicgod1]

We'll talk to you again once your water runs out in 30 years, or oil runs out in 150.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[hemorex]

Seems okay on the surface, but ignores the issue of why the settlements are there in the first place; natural resources, shipping routes, etc. Do you expect that to be a realistic solution to every disaster?

Re:Where is "safe"?

[RobinH]

Southwestern Ontario, Canada has always seemed pretty mild to me living here. Not that we never get the odd tornado or covered in ice sometimes, but certianly nothing like the major disasters the seem to happen elsewhere. *Knocks on wood*

Re:Where is "safe"?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's always a natural disaster that can happen - asteroid strike, if nothing else. What varies is the probability of a disaster occurring. If someone knowingly chooses to live somewhere with a much higher risk than elsewhere, they should not be subsidised for their stupidity.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[zoney_ie]

Ireland at least is green from the climate. But we've only had about one sunny weekend since the start of June, and even that weekend there were heavy showers. Last summer was poor, but this one has been worse.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[YrWrstNtmr]

That would be Finland. No (absolutely none) earthquakes, no floods (if there are any, they are extremely limited), no hurricanes, no extreme weather (same note as for floods).

Finland. Second highest suicide rate in Europe.

everywhere is fucked to some degree.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[foo fighter]

Also the north-central Great Plains (North Dakota, Western Minnesota, South Dakota, Eastern Montana, and Southern Manitoba and Saskatchewan).

They routinely have flood disaster declarations, but those are mostly for the benefit of agriculture subsidies and support. It was notable and rare in 1997 in that the Red River actually flooded enough to damage the cities along it.

Of course, that area is also smack in the middle of the continent (Rugby, North Dakota is called the geographic center of North America) with inadequate rail and air service. Makes it a bitch to get stuff in and out of the region.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there are relatively safe places, but most major US cities are placed based on other reasons (like NO being an important port), and the safest places (which based purely on a quick glance would probably be the Northern inland states bordering Canada) tend to be kind of isolated.

Safe places are far from faultlines, volcanoes, not directly facing a major ocean and far enough North that they don't tend to have extreme storms or get dry enough to be conductive for huge fires.

I live in Finland, which qualifies quite well. The worst storms tend to knock down a few trees and leave some rural areas without electricity, usually only for a few hours...and even that doesn't happen very often.

On the other hand, we pay quite a bit for heating during the winter.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where in the world *isn't* there a natural disaster waiting to happen.

Finland

Re:Where is "safe"?

[Icarium]

no extreme weather

Snowstorms? Blizzards? Seem pretty extreme to me (Yeah, I'm biased, living in an area where daytime temperatures below 10c in midwinter qualify as 'extremely cold').

Re:Where is "safe"?

[dafing]

New Zealand where I live is pretty sweet. Our average temperature in my area, Southland, at the bottom of the South Island of the country, is around 10-15 degrees Celsius, thats about 50-something in the american term.

Ok, so farmers are using a large amount of the underground water thats taken "thousands of years" to build up, and so they have droughts, but the normal cities, they are just dandy. We dont have problems with tidal waves or cyclones or anything else that you might think of happening to an island nation, its funny, the Americas have so many of those sorts of things and its a continent. Meanwhile, a couple islands on the way to Antarctica are fine :)

Re:Where is "safe"?

[Troed]

You do know that it was Georgia, using Israeli weapons and old planes from Russia, that bombed their own citizens ... ?

I'm not joking. This has somewhat hit mainstream media, depending on country.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[blind biker]

I guess the words "natural disaster" didn't register on your screen.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[YrWrstNtmr]

It did. But absence of natural disasters does not ensure a 'nice place to live'.

Yes, it was a different track than natural disasters, but again, everywhere is fucked to some degree.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[blind biker]

While I agree with the general observation, I am not sure where, except in your own nice head, did the phrase "nice place to live" appear. Honest to goodness, I went back to my original post thinking I might have said something, or worded in such a way (I am forgetting stuff), that your answer was warranted. Turns out, it wasn't?

And for the record, Finland is a very nice place to live, suicide rates notwithstanding. So nice, in fact, that after almost 10 years of living here, I decided it's the best place in the world in spite of some of its drawbacks. Seen the US, seen New Zealand, seen a lot of Europe... still, Finland is the winner.

Re:Where is "safe"?

[The Anarchist Avenge]

No, our moose protect us.

Idea

[moniker127]

How about this. Instead of rebuilding their houses every two or three years, they make their hosues out of legos, and just put them back together after each horribly devestating yet completley unexpected hurricane.

Re:Idea

[DamienNightbane]

Because if you've ever built something out of large sums of Legos, you'd realize that there is a 100% chance that a vital piece will go missing, even though you just saw it a minute ago.

Huh?

[abarrow]

Have any of you ever been to New Orleans? Met the people there? Know the history and the tradition of the place? Experienced the pride of people who have lived in a city with so much history?

Give me a break. What's next, are you going to tell the people in San Francisco they have to move because an earthquake is coming in a few years? How about the midwest where tornados wipe small towns clean every few years? Where are you going to move them?

We took this country and made it what it is - in many cases we had to work hard to make a place for our people to live. There's hardly a location in the US that isn't threatened by some natural disaster or another. We adapt and we make it work.

Move them out? Are you kidding? "Oh, we can't afford you anymore, you need to move." If they were to give me a choice of where my taxes went, I'd tell them to take all that money that is being spent "protecting" us in Iraq and send it down to protect one of the most beautiful and unique cities in the world.

You all go hide in a corner somewhere lest a drop of rain fall on you. I intend to enjoy the natural diversity of this great country we live in.

Re:Huh?

[Wonko the Sane]

If they were to give me a choice of where my taxes went, I'd tell them to take all that money that is being spent "protecting" us in Iraq and send it down to protect one of the most beautiful and unique cities in the world.

There is nothing wrong with people devoting their time, energy and money preserving New Orleans. It's your life after all. The problem is when you discover that you don't have enough and need to take some of my money too.

Re:Huh?

[Free the Cowards]

I'd rather keep my money. But if the government is going to take it from me anyway, I'd rather have it go to New Orleans than Iraq. (I'd really rather have it go other places, but if that's the only choice I have, what the hell, it's better than the zero choice I get now.)

Re:Huh?

[mdwh2]

I'm sure the New Orleans residents have paid lots of taxes during their lifetime too. Newsflash: taxes don't always get spent on things that personally benefit you.

Sure, we can argue how money might most effectively be spent. The poster you replied to suggests that spending money on New Orleans is better than spending billions on a war in Iraq.

Re:Huh?

[Loke the Dog]

So if New Orleans is so great... ...why do you want it to be destroyed every now and then? Is the history and traditions tied to living below sealevel? Do people in New Orleans have to live in a dangerous spot to feel proud?

Re:Huh?

[Loke the Dog]

And it is a lame argument. He's trying to tie peoples opinions in one issue to their opinions in a completely unrelated issue.

Iraq has nothing to do with New Orleans. Nothing. You don't have to choose between Iraq and New Orleans, you could just drop both of them and let the average american keep some more of his money.

Re:Huh?

[mdwh2]

And it is a lame argument.

It's a lame argument whining about the fact that it's "your" money too. If you think it isn't worth it, then fine, argue that point - but claiming it's "your" money doesn't make it inherently wrong to spend tax money on things that don't benefit you.

you could just drop both of them and let the average american keep some more of his money.

Right, so let's have a debate about not having taxes because you don't want to pay for things that don't personally benefit you. But let's not have it here, because that applies to any tax spending, and isn't specific to New Orleans.

Re:Huh?

[Guppy06]

"The problem is when you discover that you don't have enough and need to take some of my money too."

Then the next time you're using anything that touches upon the Gulf of Mexico (like, say, domestic petrochemicals), make sure it didn't come through Louisiana. Because it's their Gulf access, not yours.

The price of supporting such a major shipping center in southeast Louisiana is cheaper than trying to expand something in, say, Galveston to be able to meet the demand and rerouting all the railroads and pipelines there, and that still doesn't take into account the commerce going up and down the Mississippi River. Shut down the New Orleans area, and the price of imports go up, not that you can afford them since the price of your exports went up to the point and became less competitive.

But, hey, the size of the check the federal government writes to rebuild the area is a nice, easy number to pin down without even having to stand up out of your chair, so it's the perfect thing for armchair economists to jump on. You don't like having to pay for flood-prone river deltas? Find yourself a nice, landlocked country to live in and don't complain about the associated cost of living.

Re:Huh?

[Wonko the Sane]

Then the next time you're using anything that touches upon the Gulf of Mexico (like, say, domestic petrochemicals), make sure it didn't come through Louisiana. Because it's their Gulf access, not yours.

As I wrote in another thread, I don't mind paying my share in the form of prices of the goods that pass through the port. I just don't want the federal government giving handouts and subsidizing bad decisions.

The price of supporting such a major shipping center in southeast Louisiana is cheaper than trying to expand something in, say, Galveston to be able to meet the demand and rerouting all the railroads and pipelines there

We'll never know for sure as long as the federal government distorts the market.

Re:Huh?

[HuguesT]

Why complaining ?

You've already paid your share, the government has taken its cut in the form of taxes and is now spending them. If you don't like the way they are spent, elect someone else in the next federal elections.

Not Natural.

[twitter]

Even if you don't believe in Global Warming, you can't deny the destruction of wetlands due to drilling and flood control efforts. New Orleans is screwed because it no longer has a buffer between it and the Gulf of Mexico. The same thing is true for most of the Gulf Coast. Areas that were safe for hundreds of years are being lost, with their culture and industrial base.

Moving the people without solving the real problems only pushes off the problem for another day. Big oil is going to lose a large chunk of change as refineries and supporting plants from Texas to Mississippi are increasingly threatened.

Mistakes

[Alsee]

This is the real deal. This is not a test. For everyone thinking they can ride this storm out, I have news for you: that will be one of the biggest mistakes you can make in your life

almost as big as voting for Bush a second time.

-

We blame the Army Core of Engineers

[ademus05]

It's the fault of the Army Core of Engineers. The levees failed at much much less of their designed capacity. Despite citizens screaming about the problem, and suing the Core for a quadrillion dollars, nothing is being done about the issue and it's getting no media attention.

Here's a nice documentary about the real problems behind the hurricanes.

Nagin does the right thing

[Anonymous Coward]

THREE years too late! If that moron had done something like this in 2005, things would have turned out much better. All the Dems have done since then is blame Bush while ignoring the totally inept mayor and governor who were actually responsible. That shit works with ignorant Democrat voters, but not with the rest of us.

Now you kids can go back to your propaganda about Bush and the Republicans hating blacks.

Read this, kids.

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-Why%20MLK%20was%20a%20Republican

Republican Guilt.

[twitter]

Republicans are supportive of Big Oil, which has a dual role in these dissasters. The first is the now obvious global warming, which makes for more intense storms. The second role is the destruction of marshes by salt water intrusion that comes from canals made to support drilling. They are indirectly responsible as direct beneficiaries of flood control efforts which eliminated marsh building in all but a few parts of the Louisiana coast.

There's been a lot written about how New Orleans was used as a laboratory for Republican crony programs, like state funded religious schools and homeland defense monkey business. It's true but it pales compared to poor planning in the first place and delays in spending in the aftermath. A prime example of that crime is something called the Road Home loans. After three years, barely 1/3 of the money had been distributed for the intended home rebuilding. The new Republican Governor, instead of firing the firm responsible for the delays, proclaimed they had acted in such haste they had given out too much money and promptly demanded tens of thousands of dollars from thousands of people lucky enough to have gotten anything.

Does race play a part in all of this? Yes and no. The destruction of New Orleans was an attack on a Democrat stronghold. Other places have been equally decimated and subsequently ignored regardless of race. That is why Baton Rouge now has some 700,000 people and New Orleans less than 300,000. Mobile and Houston has seen similar growth from the destruction of the entire Gulf Coast.

Democrats have been powerless or unwilling to do anything meaningful with their control of Congress, so guilt is now accumulating in both parties.

Re:Republican Guilt.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh oh, Twitter got access to a computer with Internet access again. Don't your probation terms specifically forbid that?

Re:Republican Guilt.

[Anonymous Coward]

The first is the now obvious global warming

So you're a freetard AND a moonbat. Good to know.

Re:Republican Guilt.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can somebody tell me what this guy is talking about? I've read the post three times and I have no idea. No idea whatsoever.

Is this some kind of new meme or something?

Re:Republican Guilt.

[renegadesx]

Is this some kind of new meme or something?

No, just an old twitter

Plan

[Joebert]

Isn't there a huge surplus of houses in the US stuck in various stages of construction due to the subprime mortgage deal ?
Don't we need more food ?

Let's see if we can move everyone into these abandoned housing developments, we can setup camps and the people can finish construction on the homes themselves. The key is that they're already partially built & not in a disaster area.

Now we have a huge chunk of land that's already below sea level. We can form the land into a mangrove farm where fish and other salt tolerant plants & animals can thrive. Then blast the levies and let the whole place flood.

Re:Plan

[Dunbal]

Let's see if we can move everyone into these abandoned housing developments

      Abandoned housing developments? You mean, like on the land that I own, and paid for by my company?

      Tell me, what do you plan to do after "nationalizing" my construction company's assets?

      Those "abandoned" projects belong to someone. You can't just "take" them and "give" them to someone else. The owner would rather sit on it and shift it in 10 years or so.

Re:Plan

[Joebert]

Give you the tax dollars we would normally waste on trying to rebuild New Orleans to be habitable by people.

I'm not talking about just taking it and giving it, but surely something can be worked out. The longer those half-built houses sit there, the faster they deteriorate.

The Future of New Orleans

[Dr_Ish]

The whole 'why don't they abandon New Orleans' thread here is both incredibly silly and rather offensive. It is worth keeping in mind that N.O, was the site of a revolutionary war with the Brits, back in the day. This is evidence of the importance of the place, both then and now. Nobody ever seems to suggest that San Francisco should be abandoned, due to earthquake potential. Also, New York is hit by hurricanes too, but nobody suggests abandoning it either.

People also forget that what happened to N.O. in 2005 had far less to do with Katrina than it had to do with faulty levees. When Katrina hit N.O. back then, it was effectively a category 1, not more. The claims from the Corps of Engineers about cat 3 protection were just wrong.

My guess is that the 'abandon New Orleans' crew are just ignorant of the facts, or politically motivated. In 2005, we heard such comments from a n umber of politicians, mostly Republicans. For those of us who live in Louisiana and who know and visit N.O.on a regular basis, we know that it is a wonderful, vibrant and unique city. Yes, 2005 was a huge trauma, but as a tee-shirt that produced at the time said the city was 'bent, but not broken'.

So, rather than carping about things which seem to be poorly understood, why not do something useful? For instance, I will be riding out the storm up the road in Lafayette. The two TV stations KATC and KLFY will be broadcasting live to the web. As we have generators, we should be able to see what is going on by watching these feeds. However, guess what, we cannot see the KATC feed (generally, the better of the two, especially for weather) due to the fact that they have decided to go the Silverlight route and this is a Linux only household. If people want to do something useful, please take a moment and e-mail them a complaint at webteam@katc.com. This would be much more useful than carping on about New Orleans, when the whole issue about that place is so poorly understood.

Re:The Future of New Orleans

[Anonymous Coward]

Now please tell us about the corrupt levee board and how the money appropriated to maintain the levees was used for political gain by sleaze-ball NOLA politicians. And then explain how that was Bush's fault. Hmmmmmm?

Re:The Future of New Orleans

[pjt33]

It is worth keeping in mind that N.O, was the site of a revolutionary war with the Brits, back in the day.

That made no sense to me, since Louisiana was never part of the British Empire, so I looked up New Orleans' history. You're actually thinking of the War of 1812, although it appears you're correct to say that the battle was due to the significance of N.O. as a port.

Re:The Future of New Orleans

[ducomputergeek]

Maybe not abandon, but move to higher ground. No matter what, N.O. is still a vital link in the economic chain as a great many goods flow down the Mississippi to the ports for export. But at the same time, it is a city fighting a battle against mother nature that it will eventually loose. The city is sinking and sea levels rising. People are still going to be required to live in the area to support those operations. But do they have to live in the city proper? Why can't they live on higher ground? Why can't some of the lowest lying land next to the levees be reserved for parks and what not.

I like New Orleans as well, but it begs the question what is the most efficient use of resources: building some kind of Dutch like flood prevention system or moving people to higher ground. In the US, the likely answer to that is move to higher ground. We still have plenty of land on high ground. Now people still may want to live in the area, let them. But make them sign a waiver that they fully understand that no flood insurance will be offered. You move into that area knowing damn good and well that if it floods, it's your problem. Don't come running to the government to bail you out.

The major problem now is that not all the levees have been repaired and reinforced from when they broke the time before. These storms are likely to hit every couple years. It is a given. If NO keeps getting hit before repairs can be completed from the last storm the problems will continue to just be compounded and at some point becomes a big black hole of dollars being spent. It just seems logical for the long run to declare the lowest places next to these off-limits to development and let it flood.

If nothing else

[Anonymous Coward]

At least this will distract from the Republican Convention. Don't like making light of a disaster? Deal with it, this is Politics, a cutthroat business. Too bad they were smart enough to scale back their public circle-jerk, nothing would beat rich white dudes jerking each other off on national TV while poor minorities die in New Orleans, damn, who would've thought the Republicans had single person smart enough to call off the festivities.

1964 Civil Rights Act History Lesson

[sjbe]

Who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights act?

Check the vote breakdown by party and region. It was predominantly SOUTHERNERS of BOTH parties who opposed the bill. Remember them? They were the folks who started a civil war to keep slavery around. The vote breakdown was very clearly along regional lines not party lines.

However if you insist on defending the republicans on this issue, a few southern democrats actually voted for the act - no southern republicans did. Furthermore most of the northerners who voted against the act were republicans. So yeah, in general if someone was racist in 1964 odds were better that they were republican than democrat. Odds also tell us they were likely from the south regardless of party affiliation.

Re:1964 Civil Rights Act History Lesson

[darkpixel2k]

Check the vote breakdown by party and region. It was predominantly SOUTHERNERS of BOTH parties who opposed the bill. Remember them? They were the folks who started a civil war to keep slavery around. The vote breakdown was very clearly along regional lines not party lines.

However if you insist on defending the republicans on this issue, a few southern democrats actually voted for the act - no southern republicans did. Furthermore most of the northerners who voted against the act were republicans. So yeah, in general if someone was racist in 1964 odds were better that they were republican than democrat. Odds also tell us they were likely from the south regardless of party affiliation.

So you own link to wikipedia shows that more democrats were against the bill than republicans. (Although there are significant numbers from both parties.)

Next you are trying to say that a few SOUTHERN democrats voted for the act, but no SOUTHERN republicans did. Well, let's look at the skewed statistics:
Democrats For: 4
Democrats Against: 87
Democrats Total: 91
Republicans For: 0
Republicans Against: 10
Republicans Total: 10

Wow. 10 Republicans (out of 10) voted against, while 87 Democrats (out of 91) voted against. That's more Democrats voting against the bill than Republicans.

Now don't get me wrong, those Republicans who voted against the bill are shameful, dishonest people. They are voting for (probably) their own business/wealth than what is right, and what the party stands for.

Re:1964 Civil Rights Act History Lesson

[sjbe]

So you own link to wikipedia shows that more democrats were against the bill than republicans.

Not much on data analysis are you? The absolute numbers don't tell the story of which party and which regions are most racist. Look at the percentages and the location breakdown. Virtually all the democrats who voted against the bill were SOUTHERNERS. Many of them later switched party affiliation after this vote. Last time I checked the math 100% racist is greater than 95% racist.

Since this act passed the south has voted overwhelmingly republican. Racism had more than a little to do with that fact. The republicans reputation for being the more racist of the two parties hasn't been earned by accident. Not to say there aren't racist democrats as well but the voting records *clearly* support the hypothesis that the republicans are the party with the greater percentage of racist members. It's not even a debate.

Re:1964 Civil Rights Act History Lesson

[darkpixel2k]

Not much on data analysis are you? The absolute numbers don't tell the story of which party and which regions are most racist. Look at the percentages and the location breakdown. Virtually all the democrats who voted against the bill were SOUTHERNERS. Many of them later switched party affiliation after this vote. Last time I checked the math 100% racist is greater than 95% racist.

So you're fine with the statistic that 100% southern republicans are racist and 93% southern democrats are racist...but totally ignoring that it's 10 republicans verses 87 democrats. Statistics like that lie. You'd think based on 100% verses 93% that the republicans are bad--until you look at the actual numbers of 10 verses 87.

Since this act passed the south has voted overwhelmingly republican. Racism had more than a little to do with that fact. The republicans reputation for being the more racist of the two parties hasn't been earned by accident.

No, it's been 'earned' by a stream of constant mis-information by the Democrat party.

Like your next quote:

Not to say there aren't racist democrats as well but the voting records *clearly* support the hypothesis that the republicans are the party with the greater percentage of racist members.

You have an odd definition of 'clearly'. After totaling the votes, we end up with 112 Democrats against the bill, and 41 Republicans against the bill.

Now, I'm no expert on which number is bigger, so I tossed it into a python to get an official computer-based answer. Here are my results:

darkpixel@hoth:~$ python<
Python 2.5.2 (r252:60911, Jul 31 2008, 17:28:52)
[GCC 4.2.3 (Ubuntu 4.2.3-2ubuntu7)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> RACIST_DEMOCRATS = 112
>>> RACIST_REPUBLICANS = 41
>>> print RACIST_DEMOCRATS > RACIST_REPUBLICANS
True
>>> print RACIST_DEMOCRATS = RACIST_REPUBLICANS
File "<stdin>", line 1
print RACIST_DEMOCRATS = RACIST_REPUBLICANS
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
[editors note: DOH!]
>>> print RACIST_DEMOCRATS == RACIST_REPUBLICANS
False
>>> print RACIST_DEMOCRATS < RACIST_REPUBLICANS
False

So it seems to me based on testing using python that the number of racist democrats is grater than the number of racist republicans, and not equal to. Especially not less than as you are trying to state...

Re:1964 Civil Rights Act History Lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember them? They were the folks who started a civil war to keep slavery around.

Excuse me? We very politely said that we didn't want to be a part of your club any more, and to please leave us alone. But nooo, that contradicted your smug sense of unity and nationalism and you had to go and start a war to "preserve the union". The same union that only you guys wanted to be in.

Re:1964 Civil Rights Act History Lesson

[geekboy642]

I've just marked you a foe, I should explain why.

In a community of 100,000 people in the United States, 76 of them will have AIDS.
In a community of 1,000 people in Africa, 60 of them will have AIDS.

Clearly, the AIDS problem is solved in Africa, and the US is experiencing an epidemic of incredible proportions. It's more people than Africa!

Your misunderstanding and misuse of statistics, and your utterly incompetent fraudulent use of Python to shore up a faulty statement, indicate that you have nothing of value for the world to hear. In summary: *PLONK*

North Shore

[flyingfsck]

If you look at the whole area, you'll notice that New Orleans is just a small suburb of a much larger inhabited area. There are cities all around Lake Pontchartrain. The north shore is much higher and safer. In the greater scheme of things, New Orleans is not important and can easily be abandoned to the sea. There is no good reason for anybody to live there and I suspect that the only reason they do, is because the accommodation is cheap. So, yes New Orleans keeps getting the news attention, but it really isn't important and should be abandoned.

Re:North Shore

[Anonymous Coward]

Of all the insulting comments about a great city such as New Orleans, this is by far the lowest. Abandon a city that was here before America got itself is shameful. How easy people forget that New Orleans is the worldâ(TM)s busiest port complex. The amount of cargo that goes through their is jaw dropping. It's easy for people to forget that it is the home of Tulane, Loyola and Xavier amongst other great colleges and universities. How easy it is to forget how New Orleans culture, Louisiana culture has given to America as whole. It's not Party Town, U.S.A. because tourist visit and take advantage of things. It is home to millions and means the world to majority of us. I can only imagine if it were Miami or some city like that experiencing the same problems then it would a different story. But I suppose a city that is majority African American doesn't count. I hate to get racial but I have seen and experienced it for myself. Town full of white people get restored and no matter what they get any and everything and full support to rebuild. Town and cities full of "others" get screwed and get comments like "it isn't important and should be abandoned." Easy to say if your family hasn't lived in your area for over 250 years. Sick people in the world, I swear.

Re:North Shore

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this "informative"? This is factually incorrect and short-sited opinion.

"it isn't really important" - that's informative?

Go to Amazon music and search for "New Orleans". Tell me how many hits you get vs

Here's a fact: it's one the oldest, and most historical american cities, and home of some of the richest neighborhoods (Garden District, Uptown). Google before you speak, dork.

Re:North Shore

[Cadallin]

Incorrect. There is a very good reason people live there. It is one of the most important sea ports in North America, and as such there are many jobs there, granted many of them are bad jobs, but the poor don't really have much choice. So instead of acknowledging that these people are trying to contribute to society, and work, you criticize them for living in a disaster prone area - all because the economy demands it.

Re:North Shore

[Wheatfieldcrows]

The fact that this got modded informative is really blowing my mind. The north shore? You mean Convington? Mandeville? Really? Have you ever been there? eek. "Cities" is being pretty damn generous. From Wikipedia: Covington: 8,483 Mandeville: 10,489 Slidell: 25,695 New Orleans: 225,000 Exactly what makes you think New Orleans is a small suburb? What is your really good reason to live where you do? New Orleans is a city that is misunderstood, underestimated, and full of potential.

Wow... Thanks for the information

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully this evacuation was posted on Slashdot!

I may have not known about the hurricane without it and stayed put!

The forecasts are powered by Linux

[Animats]

The National Hurricane Center did an excellent prediction job, just as they did with Katrina. The storm is almost exactly on the predicted track from the last three days. It's all done on Linux. The forecaster's desktops run Red Hat Linux. The back end systems run Linux. The supercomputing clusters run Linux.

Re:The forecasts are powered by Linux

[Guppy06]

"The National Hurricane Center did an excellent prediction job, just as they did with Katrina."

Hurricane Ivan, not so much.

Re:The forecasts are powered by Linux

[argent]

It's interesting that Ivan showed a rightwards bias in the predictions. I've noticed a small but consistent leftward bias in the predictions since 2004 for most of the hurricanes that ended up hitting the east Texas or Louisiana coast, including Rita and tropical storm Eduoard... as well as Gustav.

This is of course totally non-scientific, based only on the hurricanes that made the news in Houston, but perhaps they're overcompensating for Ivan?

Re:The forecasts are powered by Linux

[Daimanta]

The new filosophy at the NHC: Hurricanes want to be free!

Re:The forecasts are powered by Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why you are a geek looked down upon by others - because there'sa storm about, and you fool would be askign about Linux. Tell you what? Take that linux and shove it right up your a**.
 

People in New Orleans

[W.Mandamus]

I've worked as a real estate lawyer in the New Orleans area after Katrina. Let me tell you a couple things. 1. Stop it with the "these guys rebuilt in a flood zone" thing. A number of the folks impacted are Cajuns or Acadians. If a Cajun's home floods they either raise it or move to higher ground. 2. Prior to Katrina many of the flooded areas were classified as flood zone X (does not need flood insurance) by FEMA (those maps have now been changed). 3. Many of the people in New Orleans can't financially afford to leave. Unless you're home was a total loss and you got a buyout, if you have a mortgage, not enough in insurance to pay it off and can't sell the house, that doesn't leave many options. If the government offered to buy out every flooded home owner that was classified as "in Hurricane Zone X" or "behind a federal levee, does not need flood insurance" and got flooded you'd see a lot less people trying to rebuild. Oh and one more thing, by and large it was the Federal Levee system (maintained by the Corp) that failed, not the state system that failed.

The Port of NO was running shortly after Katrina

[HornWumpus]

It cost but it was up and running to transfer the Mississippi basins falls export harvest from river barge to ocean going bulk carrier.

That's because the _Port_ of New Orleans is important, as is the off shore oil terminal, the city not so much.

The USA has plenty of other tourist traps.

Leave the Bushies alone!

[BitterOldGUy]

There feelings are hurt!

They know that they ruined our economy and their boy made policies that tanked us. They know that he screwed up Karina and will probably screw up this one. They know that they're to blame for the current state of the country. They know that because of them we are closer than we ever were to a police state. And they know that they have started the destruction of America and her freedoms and turned this country into a fascist corporate run state!

You guys need to stop rubbing it in!

I can't wait!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are about to be a bunch of dead niggers floating around New Orleans. Not being satisfied with his Katrina effort, Jesus has sent a second hurricane to clean the niggers out of New Orleans. I can't wait to see all those dead niggers floating like rats on CNN.

Looks like someone...

[Schnoogs]

...got a clue since the last time his city got pwned. How that fool got elected again is beyond me.

Re:underwater vs. earthquakes

[Migraineman]

In New Orleans, without electricity the pumps stop and the city defaults to it's flooded state. California's default state is "normal" with the earthquake being the anomaly. California doesn't drop chunks into an abyss every time the power drops out.

Re:And to all those who thought Ray Nagin was stup

[Attila Dimedici]

You just don't understand. Nagin and Landreaux are Democrats. That means that their intentions were good and that is what is important results don't matter, just intentions.
Bush is a Republican that means that he is evil. His intentions were obviously evil. Results only matter when they demonstrate that his intentions were evil. If the results of his actions are good, they can and should be ignored. /s

Let the looting begin...

[SageMusings]

Karma be damned! I refuse to be suckered into donating money again to help people who stayed behind to loot. Most of what happened the last time around disgusted me and the Federal government was not to blame. It was, in large measure, the failing of people to take the warnings seriously and the finger-pointing ineffectual local government (read that as the mayor). And then, we have the opportunist dregs of society.

If I could target my donations, I would. Until then..no money.

Two Words: Drinking Water.

[Toon Moene]

You (especially US inhabitants) can live without food for days, if not weeks.

However, you'll perish within 24-48 hours without contamination-free drinking water.

1. Get a few liters of it, NOW !
2. Get out of the line of Gustav.

Re:Nanny State

[Migraineman]

... declare martial law, and then send out the troops to enforce a mandatory evacuation.

Oh gawd, the Nanny State argument. Folks aren't capable of behaving "properly," so we (the government) shall remove all your freedoms and protect you from yourself. Slippery slope, well lubed.

One of your fundamental freedoms is to choose your life path. Life involves risk, and certain benefits are garnered by taking risks. I'm an SCCA member, and I race. The chance of injury or death in a race is not zero. Why doesn't the government protect me from myself in this regard? "Clearly" I would be safer if I didn't race, right? If folks choose to try to ride-out a storm, the government's obligation ends at informing them of the evacuation.

A lack of foresight and planning

[sjbe]

Have any of you ever been to New Orleans? Met the people there? Know the history and the tradition of the place? Experienced the pride of people who have lived in a city with so much history?

Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. I've also been to places like China where they REALLY have a lot of history so a little perspective please?

What's next, are you going to tell the people in San Francisco they have to move because an earthquake is coming in a few years?

Building a major city on an active fault-line does not strike me as the brightest idea ever. Living there without proper planning is even dumber. Equally stupid is building a significant portion of an important port city below sea level when there is no actual need to build in that exact spot. They don't have to move but we (the taxpayers) shouldn't necessarily have to bail them out from their lack of foresight either when the inevitable comes. I do not support rebuilding the parts of New Orleans that are under sea level - it's just stupid and unnecessary. Other areas I'm fine with supporting, just not the egregiously stupid ones.

Tragedies happen but maybe we should try to avoid some of the more predictable major ones? Or failing that, at least do a competent job of planning for them. Sometimes people have to live in a dangerous place but there is no excuse for stupid zoning (below sea level!) and a lack of planning for predictable natural disasters. Live in a tornado zone? Have a underground shelters nearby everywhere. Earthquake prone? Enforce appropriate building codes and tear down dangerous structures even if they are old and historic. Sentiment has a time and place but not when lives are at risk.

I'm just waiting for when Miami inevitably gets leveled by a hurricane. It will happen sooner or later.

Re:underwater vs. earthquakes

[Culture20]

California doesn't drop chunks into an abyss every time the power drops out.

Thankfully not, what with rolling blackouts.

Fine

[WindBourne]

just do not make me pay for their not having insurance. As it is, when W's admin came in, he ordered a number of homes near the colorado forests to provide their own insurance and told them that the feds would no long provide aid during fires. The reason? Because Fires hit there often. I agree with this reasoning. I think that the feds should provide HUMAN assistance, but not provide aid to those areas hit by common items. For example;

1. ALL of CA and Earthquakes, as well as southern cal with fires, drought, and mud slides.
2. Hurricanes running from the carolinas to florida and then all the way to Texas.
3. Fire and drought in Texas, NM, CO, etc.
4. Tornados in Texas, Ok, nebraska, illinoise, etc.
5. Flooding in iowa, ill, missori, mississippi, nola, texas, etc.

The idea being that if you live in a area prone to a natural disaster, it makes zero sense for the feds to pay to support your rebuilding there.

So,

[Anonymous Coward]

the fact that their national guard had been called up and were in Iraq BECAUSE of W has no meaning? The fact that our FEMA did NOTHING up front has nothing to do with it? FEMA had ALWAYS responded to emergencies. This was the first time where the feds said NOT to go (according to "brownie").

Mississippi River

[Detritus]

It isn't just the hurricanes, the sinking city, and the eroding coast line. The Mississippi river wants to switch course to the Atchafalaya basin. This is currently being prevented by the Army Corps of Engineers at the Old River Control Structure. The question is how long this will work. From what I've read, the river will eventually change course, with Morgan City replacing New Orleans as the port city for the river.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_River_Control_Structure

MS Better Prediction Software

[servognome]

Blue Screen of Death

Wrong on all counts

[Chibi Merrow]

Funnily enough, I happened to be in Louisiana during Katrina and happened to be working for the government at the time. A small portion (like 25%) of our state's national guard was in the process of standing down from Iraq when Katrina hit, and they were actually rotated into the city during the aftermath because our governor wanted to try and save face and look tough by deploying "combat hardened troops" that will "shoot to kill." One of the main Reserve bases in Louisiana, funnily enough, is IN New Orleans and the other 75% of our National Guard was sitting on their asses waiting for orders, as they were under control of the state government, not the federal government. Bush moving in and federalizing those troops would have been seen as a huge violation of states rights and an assurpation of power, as essentially the only legal basis he could have used for it would have been to declare the state of Louisiana to be rebelling and essentially removed the state government from power. In hindsight, that probably would have been a better option.

FEMA, funnily enough, responded more quickly to Katrina in New Orleans than they did to Andrew in Homestead, FL. The cynic in me would say that's because of the demographic differences between the two locations, but such baseless theorycrafting serves no one. FEMA (and pretty much any federal disaster relief agency) is in fact paralyzed without local and state government support and cooperation, as their primary role is organization and logistics; ie: figuring out who needs what and seeing that they get it. They need state and local governments (like the national guard, state police, etc.) to provide the actual manpower to accomplish anything, and in the case of Katrina our lovely (and unsurprisingly deposed) governor just sat around and dithered while people died. She even admitted herself (not realizing that the cameras were on) that she should have sent the guard in earlier and when the president offered to take over for her (since she was obviously in over her head) she told him she'd think about it and get back to him in 24 hours.

But of course, it's obviously Bush's fault, he's such a big meanie that Blanco was too scared to call and ask for help...

Re:Wrong on all counts

[paulgrant]

Funnily enough, when someone uses the phrase "funnily enough" more than once I tend to doubt the veracity of their following statements....

Re:Wrong on all counts

[Anonymous Coward]

From courses on how to interrogate criminal suspects in Western nations, it is often an indicator to "dig deeper" when they preface their statements with "I know this sounds strange, but" or "It sounds funny, but" etc.

Re:Wrong on all counts

[24-bit Voxel]

Why don't I believe you?

Re:Wrong on all counts

[Chibi Merrow]

Glad to see that the way I chose to be annoying is the only thing you could attack me on.

Also, didn't you just write the equivalent of "I never tell the truth?" YAY PARADOX!

Re:Wrong on all counts

[Chibi Merrow]

I mean, crap, you coulda at least pointed out I spelled usurpation wrong.

Re:Wrong on all counts

[Anonymous Coward]

Funnily enough, everything ChibiMerrow said ought to be really provable by simple searching - there's lots of detail there.

WHY DON'T YOU GO have a look, like I just did for a couple of her/his observations, and report back to us how (s)he's wrong - since you're the disbelieving dickhead in this thread?

Re:Wrong on all counts

[paulgrant]

Its called humor. ;) and I didn't attack you - that statement applies to anyone who starts with "funnily enough" and doesn't lead to a punch-line. As to the veracity of your statements /me shrugs. I neither live in New Orleans nor suffer hurricanes.

Re:Wrong on all counts

[paulgrant]

> I happened to be in Louisiana during Katrina and happened to be working for the government at the time ... starts an anecdotal proof of facts; since s/he hasn't claimed to be involved in state/federal response to Katrina, he is as informed as you or me.

Normally I wouldn't even bother replying (since as far as I am concerned s/he isn't a conduit to a primary historical source) but the repetition of "funnily enough" struck me as funny ;)

If it bothers you so much, go look for yourself. I fail to see where asking me to do research on a topic *you* are personally vested in is a reasonable request.

Re:Wrong on all counts

[YourExperiment]

an assurpation of power

I thought you'd invented a new word there, but sadly you've been beaten to it. You'd think someone submitting their PhD thesis would know how to use a spell checker, or do things not work that way at the University of Michigan? It probably didn't help that her parents couldn't decide if she was a boy or a girl. Rebecca Nathan Brannon, we salute you.

Re:Wrong on all counts

[Chibi Merrow]

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=949249&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=24822665#24825301

You're late to the party.

Biofuel algae farm

[symbolset]

We can form the land into a mangrove farm where fish and other salt tolerant plants & animals can thrive.

Biofuel algae farm.

Re:Biofuel algae farm

[Joebert]

Oooh another good use.

What about a wind farm ? I think the two could coexist.

Degree fallacy

[burnitdown]

Disasters occur everywhere, but in different degrees.

You're trying to conflate "disasters occur everywhere" with "disasters are likely to occur everywhere at the same degree."

Our point is that places where disasters occur at a high degree should not be rebuilt, especially not with civilian populations.

It's not really that hard, but you're making it out to be rocket science.

Re:Degree fallacy

[anyGould]

Well, it's a little harder than you're making it out to be.

All well and good to say "we won't build New Orleans". But where are you going to put all those people? They won't all fit in Minnesota and Colorado, you know. (And on a world scale, Finland won't hold all 6 billion of us. Well, maybe if we're really familiar with each other).

Oh, they're still in Texas, raising the crime rate

[burnitdown]

http://crime.about.com/b/2006/10/24/houston-homicide-rate-attributed-to-katrina.htm

What does "mandatory" really mean?

[Slugster]

Discussing the matter of disobeying police orders on another unrelated forum, I ran across this particularly interesting story concerning a wildfire in California:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7503327.stm

Page last updated at 12:12 GMT, Saturday, 12 July 2008 13:12 UK

Charred body found in California

One person has been found dead inside a burned-out house as wildfires continue to sweep through California.

The victim is thought to have been a resident of Concow, Butte County, who did not follow a police evacuation order on Thursday as the blaze neared.

In the past three weeks, hundreds of fires, most started by lightning, have burnt 1,100 sq miles (2,850 sq km).

Some 20,000 people - many of them volunteers - have been battling fires which have destroyed 1,000 homes.

"Unfortunately not everyone chose to leave and you cannot force them to," said police spokesman Sgt. Steven Pelton when asked why the victim had not obeyed a mandatory evacuation order.

"This appears to be one of those people."

But he said a post-mortem examination would be conducted on the charred body to confirm the cause of death.

Stretched thin

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger summoned an additional 2,000 National Guard troops to assist the firefighting efforts across the state.

Help has also been drafted in from Mexico, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

"We are stretched thin, and our firefighters are exhausted," said the governor.

A thunderstorm on 21 June sparked some 800 wildfires across Northern California, which have been exacerbated by drought and particularly high temperatures.

Officials have described the combination of dry brush and trees, dry weather and windy conditions as a "perfect storm".

Mr Schwarzenegger said the state's fire season, formerly lasting from late summer through the autumn, was now year-round.

He said the state now needed more resources to battle the increase in wildfires.

Of particular interest is the part where it speaks of how "the victim had not obeyed a mandatory evacuation order"....

If you don't have to obey it, then what exactly does it mean when they say it's "mandatory"? Does it mean that you are legally required to evacuate? Or is it just an official admission of sorts that if you stay, no immediate help will be available should you need it?

(,,,of course--the other time, Nagin did his "mandatory gun confiscation" and we all saw how legal that turned out to be...)
~

Re:And to all those who thought Ray Nagin was stup

[Guppy06]

"Mississippi got hit just as hard as Louisiana, and got just as little help from the feds."

And disaster relief needs scale linearly with population?

Re:The Port of NO was running shortly after Katrin

[cayenne8]

"It cost but it was up and running to transfer the Mississippi basins falls export harvest from river barge to ocean going bulk carrier. That's because the _Port_ of New Orleans is important, as is the off shore oil terminal, the city not so much. "

And where pray tell, do you expect all the people that work the ports, the oil rigs and all the infrastructure to live? The tourist industry and all, is just a part of the city...MOST people in this area do not work that industry...it is stuff that supports this important port, energy creation (oil import, drilling and refinement)...seafood industry...

Real people have to live near there to make these things work. Until this can all be 100% automated, you're gonna need nearby cities for the people. It isn't like NOLA came to be where it is on a whim....it is older than the US itself...and was established precisely because of its strategic location.

Don't forget MUCH of the natural protection NOLA had in the past against Hurricanes, we the wetlands, which have been destroyed in large part by all the canals and pipelines to bring in and process oil and other goods...which DO serve the rest of the US on an economically significant level. So, sure, with the sacrifices that NOLA and southern LA has given to help serve the rest of the US...there is reasonable expectation to receive help when needed.

Slurs

[DesScorp]

"It's simultaneously amusing and sad how Republicans have to reach back decades to find slurs for Democrats, while the current Republican Party presents such a target-rich environment for those Democrats with the guts to take advantage of it."

I can find plenty of deserving slurs for Democrats in the here and now, thanks. And your "target rich environment" the past few days seems to include starting rumors that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy with Trig, that the baby actually belongs to her daughter, and that Hurricane Gustav killing people in the gulf is a good thing because it'll help Democrats. God, according to this ex-DNC chairman, is on your side. The hurricane is proof.

So, when hurricanes kill people, and Pat Robertson claims it's the wrath of God, that's just horrible. But if it gets votes for the Democratic Party, it's proof that God is on your side? No, no hypocrisy here.

Your "guts" prove nothing but that you can be just as scummy as anyone else in politics.

Re:Slurs

[M1rth]

Let's not forget certain Louisiana Democrat politicians who've been caught with bribe money in their freezer, yet somehow the Democrats refuse to even censure them, let alone do the honorable thing and throw them out of office.

And of course this latest evac is brought to you by the Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin Memorial Motor Pool Oil Slick.

I wonder if he's doing the same thing in THIS evacuation. Likely, he is. Thankfully, we have Bobby Jindal (relatively honest, at least as Louisiana politicians go) in office rather than Kathleen "just slip it under the door of stall number three" Blanco this time around.

"It's their home"

[DesScorp]

because it's their home and this isn't china where the government can forcibly move millions of people at their whim.

If people choose a really stupid place to be their home, how much sympathy should they get? Every place has drawbacks... a hurricane zone, a tornado zone, a flood zone, below sea level, etc. But no place seems to have such a geographic death wish as New Orleans. No bedrock, a bowl surrounded by water, below sea level, sinking more every year. Its an utterly stupid place to put a city. Why should other people pay for keeping them there? We can't forcibly move them, but when can tell them "if you insist on living in this place, you're on your own".

Re:The Port of NO was running shortly after Katrin

[mrchaotica]

That's because the _Port_ of New Orleans is important, as is the off shore oil terminal, the city not so much.

The USA has plenty of other tourist traps.

The "tourist trap" (i.e., historical) part didn't get flooded anyway, because the original inhabitants of the city were smart enough to build on the high ground.

"Shared Pain/Gain"

[DesScorp]

"And here I thought we had this thing called a "nation" which embodied some elements of teamwork and shared pain/shared gain."

That only goes so far here. This is America, and you're still expected to do what you can for yourself first. This isn't a socialist country where we care for each other's every need. If you've got a disaster, we'll pitch in and help, but when you're told to do things like, oh, get the fuck out of town, and you don't do it, then you can't blame the "Nation" for that. And it's not the "Nation's" responsibility to put you up in a FEMA trailer 3 years after Katrina. And yet there are still people that live in them, people perfectly capable of going out and getting their own place, and a new job. I'd say we go above and beyond in "Shared Pain/Gain". If you want any more, move to Sweden.

Re:"Shared Pain/Gain"

[lennier]

"This is America... This isn't a... country where we care..."

Would make a nice national epitaph.

Re:"Shared Pain/Gain"

[zoney_ie]

Sweden's great, it's just a pity it's so far North and really you need to speak Swedish to live there sensibly (although I do know people who have emigrated there nonetheless, thanks to the EU freedom of movement for work). Being from Ireland, I for one am quite glad to have them in the European Union. At least there's some hope of them affecting the selfish ideals springing up here in Ireland - it's becoming like a parody of the US.

Re:"Shared Pain/Gain"

[HuguesT]

A socialist country is simply one that has understood that there are economies of scales involved instead of each fighting separately for one's individual survival.

You don't know why the people you are talking about are still in the trailers. You assume and condemn based on partial information and prejudice, from the comfort of your own remote situation.

Re:"Shared Pain/Gain"

[roman_mir]

A socialist country is simply one that has understood that there are economies of scales involved instead of each fighting separately for one's individual survival.

- yes, a 'country understood it' and now everyone is forced to 'understand it' via the taxation system and other perks, like national work days, when everyone, no matter what and who he/she is has to go on the streets, into the fields and dig for those precious taters (I was born and lived for a long time in the USSR, I know). I live in Canada now, it's somewhat better but still to socialistic for me, think I'll be moving some place more capitalistic, like Hong Kong.

Re:"Shared Pain/Gain"

[Fjan11]

A socialist country is simply one that has understood that there are economies of scales involved...

Agreed, but those economies of scale tend to work much better in a homogenous society than in the melting pot that is the US

Re:"Shared Pain/Gain"

[Atario]

This is America, and you're still expected to do what you can for yourself first. This isn't a socialist country where we care for each other's every need.

You say that like it's a good thing. I wonder why.

5-day Forecast

[dumbunny]

Two of the models show the storm passing almost directly over Crawford, TX. Maybe Gustav'll stir up some brush around the ranch and give the POTUS a chance to demonstrate to the world that he's good for something.

precautions...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tokyo has, to a large extent, been made earthquake-proof via strict building regulations. What have the residents of New Orleans done to protect themselves from loss when the next storm hits? Building the second castle in the swamp is not an efficient strategy. (God help them when they get to the thrid castle in the swamp)

captcha = "coastal" :p

you stop being a drone

[unity100]

by hand picking 3-4 names from a group of people you cant prove zit.

i can pick many republicans here who went into inexplicable shit during their careers, including racism.

its the actions of the republican party that makes people think they are racist. excuse me, but im turkish, but im even appalled at how new orleans was treated by your republican administration.

Re:you stop being a drone

[darkpixel2k]

by hand picking 3-4 names from a group of people you cant prove zit. i can pick many republicans here who went into inexplicable shit during their careers, including racism. its the actions of the republican party that makes people think they are racist. excuse me, but im turkish, but im even appalled at how new orleans was treated by your republican administration.

Care to tell my how New Orleans was 'racist'?
Was it the democratic (and black) mayor Ray Nagen (spelling?) who called New Orleans a 'chocolate city'?

What if I called my town 'white city' or 'albino city' or something equally ridiculous? I'd have a million people screaming that I was racist--but it's ok if a black man and/or a democrat does it.

So tell me. How is New Orleans racist?

Re:you stop being a drone

[unity100]

treatment of new orleans by FEDERAL government was racist.

Microsoft is built on mud?

[ErkDemon]

No, I think that Microsoft should stay exactly where they are. Heh.

Re:underwater vs. earthquakes

[mrchaotica]

In New Orleans, without electricity the pumps stop and the city defaults to it's flooded state.

FYI, the same thing happens to the subway system in New York.

What I'm sick of

[nilbog]

I'm sick of people calling out Bush for a slow response to Katrina. There's plenty to dislike about Bush we don't need to make crap up.

For anyone who for some reason doesn't know this: The federal government cannot go in and provide aid in a place like post-Katrina New Orleans unless the governor asks for it. It's against the law and the very basic nature of our country for the federal government to just go and do that kind of stuff. The governor in Louisiana was slow to ask for aid and was therefore slow to get it.

Bush actually tried to pass a law that would allow the federal government to quickly respond to such disasters and he was accused of trying to take over with an oppressive hand.

Seriously, I dislike Bush as much as the next guy but I'm not so stupid that I can't see the reality of a situation.

Re:What I'm sick of

[dbIII]

I see the "Heck of a job" quote is long forgotten. It was a disaster response a third world country would be ashamed of - with salt rubbed in the wounds by outright lies from George. He can't be blamed for it all but the bizzare emphasis on spin while people were dying and the strange confusion about who was in charge really demonstrated man of the faults of this administration. Pick any famous past President and put them in the same situation - don't you think it would have been handled differently?

Re:What I'm sick of

[hchaput]

I'm sick of people calling out Bush for a slow response to Katrina. There's plenty to dislike about Bush we don't need to make crap up.

For anyone who for some reason doesn't know this: The federal government cannot go in and provide aid in a place like post-Katrina New Orleans unless the governor asks for it. It's against the law and the very basic nature of our country for the federal government to just go and do that kind of stuff.

What I'm sick of is people making up crap without citation to defend GWB. "Title 10 U.S.C. 12301(a) provides that, in time of war or national emergency declared by the Congress, the entire membership of all reserve components or any lesser number can be called to active duty for the duration of the war or national emergency plus 6 months."

Scary

[Proud Virgin]

I'm genuinely scared to live in a world where everyone is so hostile towards people in life threatening situations.

earthquakes and volcanoes and statistics

[ErkDemon]

If the environment really is warming, then some of the old statistics become invalid.

The problem happens when you start losing inland ice. Water (and ice) are heavy ... not quite as heavy as rock, but heavy nonetheless. If you lose a few hundred metres of ice off the top of a landmass, it's almost like shaving off a similar amount of rock. Once the big icy paperweight is taken off the top, the ground beneath rises to restore the balance of forces, and if you have corners and edges of tectonic plates trying to rise against their neighbours, quickly, it sets up geological forces in non-geological time that require resolution. There have already been a few earthquakes blamed on dam construction, where the additional weight of the water has depressed a whole region.

So if we start losing significant amounts of landlocked ice, we might have to be prepared for some of these old hotspots to start kicking off as the new plate stresses try to sort themselves out.

It's Going to Be OK!

[N8F8]

I heard Obama blessed the levies with this aura or strength.

It isn't

[kurtdg]

There is no US port in the worldwide top-five by any measure. By the 2006 numbers, there isn't even one in the top-ten gross tonnage anymore.

Re:It isn't

[arkane1234]

Worldwide?
We're talking about the US here, there's no competition with Europe/Africa/Asia when it comes to bringing things into the US.

RTD

[Anonymous Coward]

"The US Geological Survey will be running a real-time "Map of Hydrologic Impacts" to monitor flood levels, and the National Weather Service has charted direction and wind-speed probabilities."

Man. Modern video games are getting more and more realistic. :) I hate to see the boss battles.

BrAngelina's $3.5 million New Orleans house

[Anonymous Coward]

It's below sea level in one of the most hurricane prone places on earth. Why are rebuilding and living there?

Apparently, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie think they are gods or something. They bought a $3.5 million mansion down there and wanted to raise their kids in the area.

Title: "Report: Jolie, Pitt move to New Orleans"
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16659949/
date: Jan. 17, 2007

LOS ANGELES - Globe-trotting Hollywood couple Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have moved to New Orleans and plan to send their three children to school there, Us Weekly magazine reported Tuesday.

"We love it there," Jolie was quoted as saying in confirming the move at the Golden Globe awards ceremony in Los Angeles on Monday night. "The kids are going to go to school there. We're really looking forward to it."

Representatives for Pitt, 43, and Jolie, 31, could not immediately be reached for comment.
But according to the story posted on the magazine's Web site, the couple's relocation to the flood-ravaged Louisiana city is at least partly in keeping with their off-screen devotion to various humanitarian causes around the world. They spent Christmas Day handing out presents to Colombian war refugees in Costa Rica.

According to Us Weekly, the movie star pair moved to the Big Easy on Jan. 11 and have purchased a $3.5 million, six-bed mansion in the city's French Quarter -- the fourth house owned by the couple.

One diner at a Decatur Street restaurant told the magazine he saw Jolie quietly mixing with the locals the day after she and Pitt moved to town.

"She's interested in befriending normal moms so she can do things with the kids," one source told the magazine, adding that the couple also hopes to raise awareness for the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast region.

"They think it is important to be there right now" and are already looking to get more involved in local charity work, the source said. According to Us Weekly, construction is set to start this month on 20 environment-friendly homes Pitt has jointly commissioned with the group Global Green USA.

Or maybe Jolie's kids have gills for breathing under water.

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart.

Any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

And Darwin saw that it was good.

Or...

[mrbrown1602]

...we could fix the problem with a Netherlands' style levee system.... Oh wait, the environmentalists and the Democrats destroyed that idea back in the 70s.

MOD PARENT UP

[Guppy06]

Seriously, this is the first time I've done one of these kinds of posts.

Evacuation over

[Animats]

The evacuation is over. The airport has closed, the buses have stopped running, the last train is gone, and the roads are empty. 5% - 10% of the population remains.

Re:Evacuation over

[arkane1234]

Yay, less problems!

Re:underwater vs. earthquakes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but the Dutch have pumps and walls so why not New Orleans?

What about the road?

[fantomas]

"We can ... be on the road in about 10 minutes. ....I *expect* exactly zero assistance from the government."

I guess you're expecting the government to have maintained "the road" so you can drive away on it? ;-)

Re:What about the road?

[Macgrrl]

"Alright, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a freshwater system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Re:What about the road?

[Migraineman]

Up until the disaster, I do expect the municipal services to be in place - roads, electricity, water, law enforcement, etc. However, during the disaster, they all disappear or are overwhelmed. I'll drive if I can, but I won't hesitate to abandon the vehicle and walk if necessary. BTW, the go-kit is contained in a very nice backpack for just such a contingency. ("On the road" was used as more of a colloquialism than a transport method.)

What you won't see is us sitting around waiting for the FEMA bus to come rescue us.

"moonbats"

[StarKruzr]

Yeah, I sure hate it when those moonbats start talking about science. It's so pesky and ungodly, I mean we all know God said he would never flood the world again.

self-sufficiency is our national myth

[misanthrope101]

Look man, it didn't start with Katrina. Back in covered-wagon times our entire expansion westward consisted of white guys trekking west and expecting the army to come get rid of the indians so they could live safely on this empty (cough cough) land. They didn't do it themselves--it was all done on the government teat. The growth of the railroads similarly dependent on government largesse. Our entire national identity, that of tough self-sufficiency, is a lie we tell ourselves. When we overthrew Saddam, the explosives and nuclear material was left unguarded, and US Marines were put on post guarding oil wells. Why don't Chevron and Exxon fight their own wars? Same reason people expect to live where they want, and have the taxpayer bail them out when things to badly. It's no different, and the saps in New Orleans (who I agree are dense for living below sea level) are no more guilty of that feeling of entitlement than Chevron or Exxon management.

Re:underwater vs. earthquakes

[arkane1234]

Yeah but the Dutch have pumps and walls so why not New Orleans?

  Because they (New Orleans) suck at it, with a lot of documented proof?

Btw - there are more cities than NO...

[jedimaster]

While it's nice to see my state get some attention, I wish the media outlets would recognize that there are more cities than NO. I'm in Lafayette right now, right about dead center for the track, yet none of the big media companies even have anyone out here (as far as I know, I'm not watching all channels at once). It's like Rita - I still think people forget that there were two strong hurricanes that year.

History is important

[Chibi Merrow]

bly assisted by Dubbyah making FEMA a sub-agency of DHS, which appears to be the most incompetent agency in existence - a title that takes some doing, I know.
As soon as you make emergency managers part of a body that's all about finding "t3h terrists", you change its focus and direction.

Actually FEMA has always suffered from "feature bloat," as any problem that Congress didn't want to deal with was randomly assigned to the agency. Its original purpose was actually to deal with civil defense against the Communists (the 'terrorists' of our parents' days), so it being subservient to DHS is actually closer to its original mission than what it's been tasked with lately.

Whether or not FEMA was a charlie foxtrot before 11/9 is a point for argument, I'm sure, but since being subsumed into DHS it's been an unstoppable toboggan ride into the abyss of bureaucratic hell.

Honestly FEMA was even more incompetent before 9/11 than it was during Katrina. The response to Hurricane Andrew was even worse, and even slower, and every other disaster they tried to help with in the nineties was exactly that, a disaster. The difference in those cases was there were State and Local officials actually trying to do something in the meantime, instead of sitting around shouting expletives and crying. Really, the difference was that those disasters didn't happen in Louisiana.

If you want to see how emergency management should be run, look to the Coasties. They saved 33.5k people after Katrina, and they have fewer than 40k staff! They don't insist on kicking decisions about the colour of Post-It notes up to national command level, which means they're agile and can respond quickly. Local commanders have authority to make decisions, and that's that.

And there is the entire problem with your "FEMA is bollocks" argument. Rescuing people is the job of the Coast Guard, State, and Local Officials. They have the agility and the manpower to accomplish that. FEMA's job is to support them by providing them whatever resources they request. The problem is, our glorious governor didn't actually request any help. She just assumed they would take care of it. She also apparently forgot that the state's National Guard is under her command, not theirs. There's nothing FEMA could have done to change what happened in Louisiana short of deposed the State government.

Re:History is important

[sumdumass]

I don't know why you haven't been modded up for this insightful comment.

There were several severe failures at local levels before the federal government even was capable of getting involved. First, neither the mayor or then governor, knowing that there was a hurricane coming, thought to tell someone to stay up Saturday night and watch the NOAA reports. Second, after ordering an evacuation almost 8 hours after they knew Katrina was going to hit, Granted, it was in the middle of the night (but that was time to mobilize the disaster plan), they failed to follow the emergency preparedness plans. Both the mayor as well as the governor. In fact, Nagin decided to goto a hotel for a hurricane party and was cut out of communications for several critical hours the day the storm hit and almost the entire day after. They didn't stock food or water and instead relied in the FEMA supply which was only meant to be supplemental in the days afterwards.

Then after a day or more, the governor admitted during a press conference that she forgot to ask for the feds to come in which was a requirement of the1878 Posse Comitatus Act. And then to make things worse, she left people stranded while "deciding" whether to give the feds control of local forces or not.

It wouldn't matter if FEMA was a well oiled machine, they walked into a cluster fuck because of local authorities and all their weaknesses shine through brighter then ever.

I guess the good thing to come from that is that the federal government now has the authority to step in on any emergency if the local authorities don't seem to be able to control it nor are effect. Had that law been in effect in 2005, FEMA could have jumped in a little sooner and not been held up by the incompetence of local authorities. Perhaps it would have made their shortcomings a little less influential in the outcome.

Frequency!

[Roger W Moore]

The Microsoft campus is built on solidified mud that flowed down during the last big eruption of Mount Rainer.

Which was when? According to wikipedia the last eruption was over 150 years ago and the last mudslides 500+ years ago. Volcanoes, like hurricanes, are to some degree predictable. So, having to evacuate and rebuild parts of your city once every 500 years (if not longer) does not seem so unreasonable. In fact, looking at the last few thousand years of recorded history, if you can go 500 years without your country being invaded and someone burning your city down you are doing pretty well!

Base rate fallacy & conditional probability.

[sjbe]

So you're fine with the statistic that 100% southern republicans are racist and 93% southern democrats are racist...but totally ignoring that it's 10 republicans verses 87 democrats. Statistics like that lie. You'd think based on 100% verses 93% that the republicans are bad--until you look at the actual numbers of 10 verses 87.

What you have just described is called the base rate fallacy. You also appear to have a confirmation bias and are anchoring when choosing your data to examine. Most importantly you completely fail to understand the concept of conditional probability.

Assume (hypothetically) only 11 out of 91 southern democrats voted against the bill (that's 12%) which is still greater than the total number of southern republicans in 1964. It doesn't prove that a randomly chosen southern democrat in 1964 was more likely to be racist - it proves just the opposite. The fact that there were a larger absolute number of racist democrats at the time does nothing to change the conditional probabilities of a random southern congressman being a racist. Given that a 1964 congressman was a southerner, the probability that a randomly chosen democrat was racist was lower than the probability that a randomly chosen republican was racist. This can be formally proven with mathematics if you like. It's not "lying with statistics", it is a cold hard fact based on conditional probability.

If it helps you sleep better at night to revel in the fact that there were some asshole democrats who were/are racist that is pathetic but your choice. But you ought to actually understand statistics before you attempt to argue using them.

Every family should have a bug out bag.

[DreadHarn]

I live "be prepared". I have what is commonly referred to as a "bug out bag". Enough food and water to last 6 days for my wife and I as well as a WIDE assortment of other items. A small list: 1. duct tape 2. mosquito nets, ponchos, and wide brimmed hats, sun screen 3. nail clippers 4. tooth brushes and paste 5. sanitary wipes 6. safety goggles, gloves, ear plugs 7. emergency whistles 8. waterproof matches 9. a knife 10. a compass 11. 2 led flashlights 12. dry socks 13. an electric lamp 14. a handcrank/solar radio/light 15. water purification pills / canteen 16. first aid kit the list goes on. About 80 items in all in a MOLLE system back pack ready to go at a moments notice. I also own and S&W M&P 40 and a Ruger 22 rifle. A .22 is good for hunting small game and the pistol for personal protection. Every person/family should have such an emergency kit, especially if you live in an area with seasonal risks (i.e. FL where I live)

Re:Every family should have a bug out bag.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dry socks and duct tape I can understand. But nail clippers and ear plugs? I don't see how those could be emergency requirements.

We help each other here

[bgspence]

We have disasters everywhere. Hurricanes in the gulf, earthquakes in the west, tornadoes in the midwest, terrorists out east.

And, we help each other. If you can't deal with sharing the burden of disasters, get your Libertarian ass off to your own island and live by your own independent self.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The mayor is a moron

[RogueWarrior65]

Governor Jindal is very sharp. He's on top of this, very well organized, and he lays it out to the public clearly.

Mayor Nagin is a moron. Once again he's got that "deer in the headlights" look on his face. "Anyone caught looting will be sent directly to Angola." Um, yeah, hey Ray, ever hear of Due Process?

Move the port?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone theorize the cost of rebuilding said port somewhere else? Further upstream on the River? Somewhere else on the coast?

Somewhere that isn't going to require 5 year / 10 year / ? year recurring rebuilding costs?

conservative bait...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're interested, check this one out - a neocon that is so angry he's almost spitting up blood here in a slashdot discussion:

right here
Have fun...

Re:The Port of NO was running shortly after Katrin

[HornWumpus]

Where do you think they lived?

Remember the port and the off shore oil terminal were up and running within weeks of Katrina, back to capacity within months.

A small town worth of people will keep them staffed nicely. We can build that small town gold plated flood protection.

The fact will remain that large parts of NO were rundown slums. Nobody builds new rundown slums, even in flood plains.

Those residents will have to find slums in new cities where they can afford to live.