I'm watching the news tonight about New Orleans, especially how the levees have broken in several places, flooding pretty much the entire city. The N.O. mayor is saying that the water is not even going to stop rising for a while yet. But already, people seem to be talking about pumping the water out and cleaning up the mess.
My question is: Why bother?! This hurricane has dramatically proven already that the entire city was a disaster waiting to happen. So many of those houses are already submerged to their rooftops -- they're going to have to be completely razed. Other, taller buildings will probably have to be demolished because their foundations have been compromised, or the supports in the lower floors have been weakened. And that's not even considering the wind and impact damage from the hurricane itself.
I'm sincerely hoping that people will manage to emotionally grasp the scope of this disaster and realize that this is one of those few cases where it's not worth rebuilding in the aftermath. It's not just a matter of building a bigger, better series of levees to keep the water out... there's always going to be a bigger storm coming along to knock down what we build. And in the case of New Orleans, the potential for flooding is just far too massive, I think, to justify anything more than razing the buildings and moving the vast majority of the city to higher ground.
Am I the only one who's thinking along these lines? I know it's a huge undertaking, and I'm not the most experienced to make such a judgment myself, but surely I can't be alone in the belief that sometimes, we just have to let Nature win.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Except that the city is there for a reason, or rather a whole legion of reasons, historical and economic and, well, mainly economic, but anyway. There's always going to be a bigger storm, or earthquake, or volcano, or tsunami. Sure, in the long run New Orleans is doomed, but what isn't?
I mean, you sort of have a point, inasmuch as that entire region of Louisiana is dependant upon thwarting the whims of the Mississippi, which would much prefer a course divergent from its present one, but how do the costs of realignment compare to the costs current maintenance?
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Florida's been struck by about five or six major hurricanes in just a little over a year. It's obviously a danger to people; it just sticks out into the Gulf of Mexico like a toreador shaking a red sheet at the hurricanes. We should abandon it also. Plus, it looks like a wang, and that's just not appropriate for children to look at.
Seriously, there's a lot that can be done to New Orleans to make it more resistance to hurricane damage. The Army Corp of Engineers could take a page from the 1900 hurricane that leveled and killed 5,000 on Galveston Island: raise the city. In fact, a good place to get the fill material would be Lake Pontchartrain; with a deeper Lake Pontchartrain, it can contain a larger amount of water generated by the surges and rain runoff.
That's on the grand, expensive side of matters. Let's just look at the current flooding. We have levee breaches on the 17th Street Canal. It's a small canal that runs through a neighbor and connects to Lake Pontchartrain. If the terminus of that canal had floodgates, the breach of levee would have just dumped a portion of the canal instead acting as a pipeline for the entire lake. Updated drainage plans, improved pumps, drain to the delta region and swamps rather than the lake, there's a lot of ideas that could be an improvement to New Orleans.
Will it make New Orleans perfectly safe? No, but no city on this planet is safe from some disaster. Buildings in California still collapse in earthquakes, but improved building materials and construction codes make it safer than it once was. It comes down to acceptable risk. Even with any improvements, the city will be another flood disaster waiting to happen. But for many people, it's where they want to live, have lived for generations, have built a community, and established an major economic center for the region. It's not just an easy thing to say "Abandon this area and leave", especially in light of mankind's desire to rebuild from destruction.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
quote: ...no city on this planet is safe from some disaster.
The exception being, any city in Finland. Our ground doesn't shake or spit molten rock, our forests are too wet to burn and too cold to harbor deadly diseases, our rivers flood onto virtually empty plains, our storms are moderated by mountain ranges and alternating sea/land/sea formations in neighboring areas, and we have no mountains of our own to send lavines or mudslides to our cities...
Seriously, if we were to abandon our cultural ties to existing cities, shouldn't there be plenty of room to accommodate all of mankind in disaster-free areas? Most of inland Asia suffers from no malady save drought, which in turn is just a matter of technology. Evacuation of areas of high volcanic activity at least should be fairly feasible, given sufficient totalitarian means. Flood-vulnerable areas would be fairly easy as well. Broad climate hazards like monsoons are a different matter, of course.
A species that takes refuge in the safe inland areas of its planet would probably be a highly polluting or at least energy-consuming species, considering the imposed traffic and sustenance-infrastructure problems. It might still be a logical direction of development on the long run, though.
All the best to the people of the South. Here's hoping that one always gets as much advance warning... And has the means to get out of the way in time.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, natural disasters. New Orleans does have a slightly better track record when it comes to, say, Russian invasions. And I do wonder what effects a warmer arctic will have on the Nordic countries in general.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Weren't the northern European countries hit hard by nuclear fallout after the Chernobyl accident in 1986?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Well, one has to remember that peak oil is almost upon us, and soon long-distance food transportation will be too expensive. When that happens, arable land will be at a premium.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"...surely I can't be alone in the belief that sometimes, we just have to let Nature win."
Yes, but who decides when it's one of those times? I mean, unless you know a place on Earth where we CAN beat the elements, that's like saying we should all go back to living in caves and wearing bear-skins. And those things itch.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
It would be interesting to see how we would colonize another planet. We would have the technology to observe and plan where we would set up settlements before we even step foot on that planet. Of course, wherever there are valuable resources, the gains may outweigh the risks. Originally, New Orleans was a key port since it's at the mouth of the Mississippi. Obviously the risks were insignificant to the gains at the time. Now, I don't know if it would be worth it since it's not really a major port anymore.
As for disaster-free areas, IMO you'd have to abandon most of North America if you really wanted to be safe. Too many earthquakes, volcanos, tornados, hurricanes and floods. And there's that really pesky Super Volcano threatening us as well.
"The exception being, any city in Finland." Anyone care to aim an asteroid in the general direction of Finland?
B.J.
Posted by Mighty Blogger Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yeah, but some places -- particularly those under sea-level -- are, I think, a bit more prone to this kind of shit then others. Like the idiots in California who build their houses on rockfaces that have a prediliction to sliding into the sea.
New Orleans is dead -- if you believe in divine intervention, Katrina was a warning: Get out, because it might get better temporarily, but it'll get bad again, and this time none of you who stay are getting out."
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Hey.. my entire country is below sealevel or was never even meant to be land. But we're still here.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
That is because it takes more than a soft fluid to penetrate our dykes.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Hee hee.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Okay, I can agree that it's not up to just individuals to decide when it's appropriate to cut and run. I know that it IS possible to beat the elements like Cartman said, and like Siegfried said, there's few places on the planet that are safe from any disaster.
But I've got one more point that I didn't think to mention before: global warming. The Siberian permafrost is melting, the Arctic ice cap is melting, the Antarctic ice shelfs are shrinking... it's only a matter of a few decades before the entire sea level starts rising by at least a couple of feet. And when that happens, will any existing levee be enough? If it's only a few inches of additional water, that's one thing, but scientists are talking about the complete melting of the Arctic ice cap within 100 years, and that's going to disturb weather patterns as well as "just" raising the sea level.
Combining the problems of hurricanes, the flooding of the Mississippi, the diverting of the river, and especially the "bowl" effect of the terrain, it seems to me (at least) that the region is far too dangerous to have such a large city in that location. Most of it, I think should be moved -- like most of Galveston was moved to Houston.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I would so totally change the name of the place to Galvatron.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Hee hee.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
New Orleans: The Venice of the Deep South
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Well, I live in Earthquake territory.... yet people still come to live in Los Angeles knowing that some day we might become a coral reef or at the least an island to send prisoners to. But I choose to live here because I like the weather and I grew up for 15 years of my life in the area. My family lives here and I am a family-oriented person. Even though I am fairly whitewashed culturally, there are some traditions I still keep such as family loyalty and keeping roots within the place you grew up in.
Posted by Home Decor and Gardening (Member # 239) on :
And also, I mean, shit, Arnold.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Yes, I don't think I would want to leave this world without at least once having been to the town where Tom Arnold lives.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
At least.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Most of it, I think should be moved -- like most of Galveston was moved to Houston.
I assure you that Galveston is still there. It's about seventeen feet higher above sea level than it was, and it now has a sea wall. Some industry did shift towards Houston, but that would have likely happened anyway due to the oil boom and the completion of the Houston Ship Channel. The island is still home to about 60,000 residents and is a major economic player in the area.
New Orleans does not lend itself to moving very easily. It's the fourth-busiest port in this nation. It's near the mouth of the most important river in this country. About the "safest" place north you could recreate that extensive infrastructure would be Baton Rouge, and I doubt they have the room or desire to do so. On top of that, you have a ton of oil refineries, storage tanks, and pipelines in New Orleans. Many are there because they can conveniently connect to the oil rigs out in the Gulf of Mexico. To say relocating and rebuilding them elsehwere would be a hassle would be a vast understatement.
Posted by Home Decor and Gardening (Member # 239) on :
Dude, I think he lives in Greensboro.
Posted by Home Decor and Gardening (Member # 239) on :
Tom Arnold.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well obviously they'll figure something out, since we all know Joseph Sisko will have a successful restaurant there by the mid-24th century... Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
New Orleans then might have been a giant holodeck! Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Or then it is the New Orleans.
Also, think how much the sea levels would drop if one removed the eastern end of Cuba and dug a state-long, mile-wide ditch up Florida. Up a-bubbling would come the remains of cities long forgotten.
(Nope, no ill effects from the '86 nuclear fallout here, save for an isolated case of brain damage leading to chronic Trek addiction. Might also have had something to do with TOS being re-aired here for the first time since the sixties, though.)
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The terrible thing (aside from all those dead people nad destruction and Jerry Falwell not being among the victims) is that when they do rebuild, the seedy charm will likey be replaced with suburbia, condos and (worst of all) a Disneyesque family-friendly version of Burbon Street.
Possibly called Kol-Aid street or something equally nonoffensive.
Plus, I know someone that lost his apartment there....it's gone. Everythng he owned, his diplomas, clothers...the whole sheebang.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Nad destruction is too awful to contemplate.
One place I intend to avoid is Buboe Street, myself.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Everythng he owned, his diplomas, clothers...the whole sheebang."
Well, hey, if he had clothers, he obviously had too much money, anyway.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
And how important are the diplomas? Would he have to show them to get a job? Or were they just hung on his wall to make him feel like he'd done somethign with his life? I couldn't even begin to guess where my degree certificate is.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
My mum's put mine on the mantlepiece next to the cheesy graduation photo (and I have to say, I never realised that you were handed a fake degree for that. It felt...deceptive).
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: And how important are the diplomas? Would he have to show them to get a job? Or were they just hung on his wall to make him feel like he'd done somethign with his life? I couldn't even begin to guess where my degree certificate is.
Well, mine are at the bottom of a closet, but I guess they were a point of pride for him. He is going for a Masters degree so I'm guessing the others were on display.
Sadly, no one really checks credentials anymore- over a dozen florida teachers were just fired a few months back- for having no college degree at all!
But that's here and we are rather odd.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
What? No politics? So I was over at the parent's Friday and CNN was coming down HARD on the president. It was almost like European news reporting. Things look BAD in New Orleans and Lousiana. And not just flood damage. People are angry. I mean it's a bad sign when they're bussing folks into Texas sports stadiums, isn't it? Cutting federal funding to levee programs seems like a really bad idea now. A lot of people are drawing unflattering comparisons to Clinton's actions/reactions with Floyd.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
What is the U.S. supposed to do? Set off a nuke in Nawlens to dry it all up? People are angry, but they expect INSTANT response. They don't have a clue about the logistics involved in such a massive operation.
Bussing survivors out of the area is probably the best option at this point. You are getting them to areas where they can get medical help, food, water, and clothing and away from a disaster area that will soon become a festering sea of disease and pestilence.
It will take DECADES to undo what this has done. It will take time for the waters to subside. Then there will be months of cleanup. You can pretty much write off most of the existing structures as uninhabitable due to the damage to structural members and probable shifting of foundations. Utility lines will most likely need complete replacement due to the infiltration of the flood water and whatever contaminates it contains. Fresh water supplies will be the most dificult to obtain and for quite some time will need to be shipped in. Building materials will have to be shipped in from other areas. All civil support mechanisms will have to come from out of the area.
Economically, you've lost the industry and income of a major port and tourist attraction. You now have perhaps a couple million refugees that will have to be dispersed to other areas. Their care will affect the economies of surrounding areas that will need to meet basic needs without having remuneration. This will cause a substantial drain on the local economies nearby. How do you house, clothe, & feed two million now homeless people? What about the psychological impacts?
It's sad. And it's not going to get fixed with a few donations in a short amount of time.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
THe (Democrat) mayor of New Orleans taking every chance to bash "the feds" for "doing nothing" is not helping either.
For starters, it's not being handled well, but to say that FEMA and the National Guard are not doing anything is pretty crass.
Though the mayor's lapsing into laughable ebomics makes him pretty easy to ignore (even when he does have a point).
Also, a lot of the displaced will not return to their former homes/jobs/lives- that will make finding a job in the cities hosting refugees nigh impossible.
[ September 03, 2005, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Bussing survivors out of the area is probably the best option at this point."
Indeed it is. Maybe they shouldn't have stopped doing so.
"...a disaster area that will soon become a festering sea of disease and pestilence."
Your use of the future tense seems inappropriate.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, I've seen those Mardi Gras videos: it was always that way.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I didn't know they shot a "Girls Gone Wild" in New Orleans
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
My god, this IS a national crisis!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
A crisis of epic scale- where....WHERE can college girls perform acts of debautchery in exchange for cheap glass beads now?
Wont someone think of the children!?! Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
They will do what they like, as is their won't.
I wonder how long it will take for Bush to get down there. Jackson is there now. No matter how much of it is political and what is genuine, he's doing good by "showing up".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Er...how exactly?
Bush was (aparantly) there yesterday at some point- he made some brief news blurb while getting on a helicopter to survey the damage.
It's not as though it's safe for the President to go in there now anyway- relief choppers bringing food and water are still being shot at (why is incomprehensible to me).
It sounds really harsh, but why is everyone acting like such fucktards there? It's worse than after Hurricane Andrew because the flooding, but (with some exceptions) people really pulled together after much of Miami and Homestead were leveled.
Of course, we had the National Guard on the spot the same day to stop looting...but still. From a south Florida perspective, It's tough not to angry a some of the people causing trouble (looting, shooting etc.).
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
You know what happened when Bush visited the area? They set up a fake food distribution center for him to be photographed in front of, then tore it down after he left. They also set up a fake levee-repair effort for him to be photographed in front of, then took all the equipment away after he left. And the whole time they were carrying out this pretend relief effort for the cameras? All helicopter flights in the area were banned for the dureation of Bush's visit. Food and supplies were left sitting in trucks at the airport, ready to be loaded into helicopters and taken to the refugees, but they weren't allowed to, for no other reason than Bush's presence.
If finally figured out why Bush does the things he does. Repealing environmental laws, starting wars, now this. He obviously derives some sort of sexual pleasure from seeing human suffering and death.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Nice.
Gotta love our C in C! Millions of people voted for, and still think he's doing a great job.
Where did you hear the photo-ops were faked?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I haven't read it yet, though.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:The Top 10 by 2010 vision was simple: dramatically raise the city's profile as a successful, special, and wonderful place to live, such that it would begin to make "Top 10" lists in the US by the year 2010. The strategy was also simple: to actually make the city a more successful, special and wonderful place, so that more businesses, families, and tourists would come.
Sounds like he's promoting Disneyland.
I'd prefer a return to the "Big Sleezy" party town that was a mecca for new music talent, horney horney party goers and spicy cajun food. To me, those things made it "special and wonderful" (or at least flavorful and uique), but it's doubtful city planners will agree.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The fake photo-op stuff showed up all over the political weblogs (well, the leftist ones, anyway) the other day. The fake food distribution was apparently reported on German television, and the fake levee work was pointed out by Senator Landrieu.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Er....I'd have to see confirmation on that food distribution thing. ...and I;d like to hear about the levy thing from someone other than a democrat.
Just so no one can say "it's partisan sniping", of course.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: What is the U.S. supposed to do? Set off a nuke in Nawlens to dry it all up? People are angry, but they expect INSTANT response. They don't have a clue about the logistics involved in such a massive operation.
You can mobilise an Army to invade/enter other countries, Afgahnistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Kosovo/serbia, Somalia - but you can't send in an army to protect one of your own cities? "Category 5 Cyclone/hurricane" should have been enough warning to KNOW that the shit was gonna be beaten out of that part of the country and troops/guard/helicopters/planes etc should have been on standby.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Shoulda, woulda, coulda is too late.
Now it's a big ckusterfuck and a lot of people are homeless, a city is ruined and may not ever be completely rebuilt.
On the plus side, I understand that bacteria are benifiting from all this quite nicely. they're my little friends.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Do you say hello to them every morning, too?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Nope- they're always with me: in my mouth, my guts, you name it. They're very loyal.
I think I'll leave them my body when I die: sort of a going away feast for my pals.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Shoulda, woulda, coulda is too late.
I'm not DEFENDING the inactions of the US government! Gah! Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
It SHOULDA been enough warning for people to LEAVE the area too, but we see how well that happened. It reminds me of the people that lived around Mt. Saint Helens that refused to leave when they were warned that an eruption was imminent. "AH, I've lived here all my life and nuttin' ain't happened". A short time later that philosophy was quickly incinerated.
NOBODY was prepared for this disaster. FEMA obviously does not have the planning, personnel, or resources to effectively deal with a truly catastrophic event.
What pisses me off more, is that we can't get food, water, & help there, but we can sure get a bunch of idiot news reporters in. Yeah, THAT'S really helping things.
BTW... Did anyone else see the report about the group of gay people getting together and having their "Decadence Parade" in New Orleans today? One of the people they interviewed said "Hey, this is New Orleans and we are going to party anyway!".
"It SHOULDA been enough warning for people to LEAVE the area too, but we see how well that happened. It reminds me of the people that lived around Mt. Saint Helens that refused to leave when they were warned that an eruption was imminent. 'AH, I've lived here all my life and nuttin' ain't happened'. A short time later that philosophy was quickly incinerated."
See, I thought the same thing at first, too. Except, as it turns out, when they order a "mandatory evacuation" of a city, they don't actually evacuate people. Granted, there were surely some people who could have gotten out who chose not to. But, all the people who didn't have any transportation, all the people who were sick or feeble, including those who were in the hospitals... They were all left behind.
"NOBODY was prepared for this disaster."
They should have been, though. That's the thing. The feds are standing around saying "Oh, man, a hurricane hit, and the levees broke? Who could have possibly imagined that would ever happen?" Only EVERYONE, fuckwits.
"What pisses me off more, is that we can't get food, water, & help there, but we can sure get a bunch of idiot news reporters in. Yeah, THAT'S really helping things."
Well, the reporters are helping. They're making sure the public knows wat a complete and total clusterfuck this whole thing is. Otherwise, the government would just be saying "oh, yeah, everything's A-okay, hunky-dory, yep", and we wouldn't know any better.
As for why we can't get help there... It's because FEMA won't let them in.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:The Washington Monthly: BUSH AND KATRINA.... For what it's worth, I'd like to make absolutely clear why I hold George Bush accountable for the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.... I don't blame him for being on vacation... for a certain amount of chaos in the initial response... for rolling FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security... for focusing more on terrorism than on natural disasters. That was a natural reaction to 9/11. Nor do I think that Bush doesn't care about natural disasters....
Rather, what happened was a series of decisions... that taken together made Katrina more damaging than it had to be.... These decisions were deliberate and disastrous, and that's why I think Bush deserves a large part of the blame for what happened....
January 2001: Bush appoints Joe Allbaugh, a crony from Texas, as head of FEMA. Allbaugh has no previous experience in disaster management.
April 2001: Budget Director Mitch Daniels announces the Bush administration's goal of privatizing much of FEMA's work. In May, Allbaugh confirms that FEMA will be downsized: "Many are concerned that federal disaster assistance may have evolved into both an oversized entitlement program...." he said. "Expectations of when the federal government should be involved and the degree of involvement may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level."
2001: FEMA designates a major hurricane hitting New Orleans as one of the three "likeliest, most catastrophic disasters facing this country."
December 2002: After less than two years at FEMA, Allbaugh announces he is leaving to start up a consulting firm that advises companies seeking to do business in Iraq. He is succeeded by his deputy and former college roommate, Michael Brown, who has no previous experience in disaster management and was fired from his previous job for mismanagement.
March 2003: FEMA is downgraded from a cabinet level position and folded into the Department of Homeland Security. Its mission is refocused on fighting acts of terrorism.
2003: Under its new organization chart within DHS, FEMA's preparation and planning functions are reassigned to a new Office of Preparedness and Response. FEMA will henceforth focus only on response and recovery.
Summer 2004: FEMA denies Louisiana's pre-disaster mitigation funding requests. Says Jefferson Parish flood zone manager Tom Rodrigue: "You would think we would get maximum consideration....This is what the grant program called for. We were more than qualified for it."
June 2004: The Army Corps of Engineers budget for levee construction in New Orleans is slashed. Jefferson Parish emergency management chiefs Walter Maestri comments: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay."
June 2005: Funding for the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is cut by a record $71.2 million. One of the hardest-hit areas is the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, which was created after the May 1995 flood to improve drainage in Jefferson, Orleans and St. Tammany parishes.
August 2005: While New Orleans is undergoing a slow motion catastrophe, Bush mugs for the cameras, cuts a cake for John McCain, plays the guitar for Mark Wills, delivers an address about V-J day, and continues with his vacation. When he finally gets around to acknowledging the scope of the unfolding disaster, he delivers only a photo op on Air Force One and a flat, defensive, laundry list speech in the Rose Garden.
So: A crony with no relevant experience was installed as head of FEMA. Mitigation budgets for New Orleans were slashed even though it was known to be one of the top three risks in the country. FEMA was deliberately downsized as part of the Bush administration's conservative agenda to reduce the role of government. After DHS was created, FEMA's preparation and planning functions were taken away.
Actions have consequences. No one could predict that a hurricane the size of Katrina would hit this year, but the slow federal response when it did happen was no accident. It was the result of four years of deliberate Republican policy and budget choices that favor ideology and partisan loyalty at the expense of operational competence. It's the Bush administration in a nutshell.
By Dan Froomkin Special to washingtonpost.com Tuesday, September 6, 2005; 1:21 PM
President Bush somehow missed the significance of what was happening on the Gulf Coast last week as he and his political guru, Karl Rove, flitted between Texas and California and, finally, Washington.
But now, facing what is clearly a full-scale political disaster, Rove and a handful of other masterful political operatives have gone into overdrive. They are back in campaign mode.
This campaign is to salvage Bush's reputation.
Like previous Rove operations, it calls for multiple appearances by the president in controlled environments in which he can appear leader-like. It calls for extensive use of Air Force One and a massive deployment of spinners.
It doesn't necessarily include any change in policy. It certainly doesn't include any admission of error.
It utilizes the classic Rovian tactic of attacking critics rather than defending against their criticism -- and of throwing up chaff to muddle the issue and throw the press off the scent.
It calls for public expressions of outrage over the politicization of the issue and of those who would play the "blame game." While at the same time, it is utterly political in nature and heavily reliant on shifting the blame elsewhere.
But in some ways, this post-Katrina campaign poses Bush's aides with unprecedented challenges.
The problem -- an achingly slow federal response to what has turned out to be one of the greatest natural disasters this country has ever faced -- can be traced at least in part to one of the Bush White House's most defining characteristics: The protective bubble within which the president operates.
Bush's aides intentionally keep him mentally and physically aloof from any ugliness -- political or otherwise. It lets them keep tight control over the presidential imagery and stay on message.
But inside his bubble, Bush first failed to recognize what was becoming clear to almost anyone watching the news: That Americans needed help. And in his two meticulously staged visits to the Gulf Coast on Friday and Monday, it is precisely because Bush was kept so far away from dissension or mess that he appeared so out of touch.
He cracked jokes on Friday, including one about his drinking days in New Orleans, but has yet to confront the true horror of the situation so widely seen on TV. He has yet to acknowledge the disgrace of a major American city being rendered uninhabitable on his watch. He has yet to come face to face with people left to suffer for days in hellish conditions and explain to them why their government failed them. And he has yet to demonstrate the strength that Americans require from their president in a time of crisis.
This crisis finds the president looking impotent at best, incompetent at worst. And there is an element of whining to Bush's refusal to shoulder his responsibility -- especially should the press continue to make it clear how intensely he and his top aides are trying to pass the buck.
The men behind Bush's bubble are clearly hoping that their tried and true methods will serve them well yet again and that over time, Bush's reputation will recover.
But with every body removed from the attics of New Orleans over the coming weeks, America will remember the colossal failure of government to protect its people.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"What pisses me off more, is that we can't get food, water, & help there, but we can sure get a bunch of idiot news reporters in. Yeah, THAT'S really helping things."
Well, the reporters are helping. They're making sure the public knows wat a complete and total clusterfuck this whole thing is. Otherwise, the government would just be saying "oh, yeah, everything's A-okay, hunky-dory, yep", and we wouldn't know any better.
Well, for every good-heated celebrity doing work, there are seven fucktards like Oprah, Dr. Phil, Jesse Jackson and that dork that said "Bush does not care about black people" (as though that is why it'sa clusterfuck situation).
Sadly, this week -I've been borged out in hospital the past four days- watching nothing but amazing human intrest pieces about people helping total strangers from as far away as Utah, only to turn on BBC and see that the rest of the world is only reporting on scandal, deaths, floating bodies, disease and the few morons too stupid to leave their sewer soaked homes.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm curious about what evidence there is that he does.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
None that I've ever seen, really. Just some new "star" running off at the mouth for that camera and a handy soundbyte.
That's not to say he cares about the poor, or anythig like that, of course- just that it's an indiscriminate uncaring attitude, not a racist one. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Sadly, this week -I've been borged out in hospital the past four days- watching nothing but amazing human intrest pieces about people helping total strangers from as far away as Utah, only to turn on BBC and see that the rest of the world is only reporting on scandal, deaths, floating bodies, disease and the few morons too stupid to leave their sewer soaked homes."
See, here's the thing, though: Those "amazing" human interest stories oughtn't be amazing at all. That sort of thing ought to be commonplace when something like this happens. The fact that a better-off human being doing something kind for a not-so-well-off human being is considered newsworthy is what's worrying.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well....no. It's "amazing" when a family in Utah takes in a woman who got seperated from her kids, spends days on end calling every shelter and agency and finally finds the kids, and then buys the mom a plane ticket to be reunited with them.
That's pretty fucking amazing of them.
Most people would just send some money or mabe voulenteer ther home as a place for the refugees to stay. If life were more like Star Trek, it would be commonplace, but in our world, it's rare and noteworthy.
As for "just" being really cool to those in need, that's great to see too and it would be nice if BBC had shown some of that along with the clusterfuck and corpses.
But who knows? I missed it today, so mabye they did a big piece on people pulling together and the uncrushable human spirit and good ol' american spirit to rebuild in the face of overwhelming adversity....
But I kinda doubt it.
Of course, bad news is big news here as there, so I'm not singling them out- we dont exactly delve into the locals after the Tsunami pulling together either (hey, whatever happened to those guys? They must be all fixed up by now as no one is reporting on their plight- gosh that was fast).
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Probably because the bad news from the Indian Ocean these days is more of the "Locals return to rebuild their stricken homes, only to find they don't live there, they never lived there, and that beach is now the site for a luxury hotel, opening in 2006" variety. Not the kind of corporate shenanigans you get corporate news outlets covering. Beyond that, I see the occasional news piece about rebuilding efforts (usually cautiously optimistic in tone), and there was an interesting Horizon documentary about techniques being used to identify dead Western victims.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I saw a doco about how Detroit is losing citizens fast - whole tracts of suburbia empty and decaying. Maybe a lot of New Orleans citizens could set up shop there for a bit? Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Wait till the fraud scams start making the air. And the profiteers like the guy who drove down there with a truckload of ice charging $10 per bag. My understanding is that he got pummeled and rightfully so. I hope they gave him an ice enema.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That same thing happened here after hurricane Andrew.
Why florida's anti-goiging laws are not national is a mystery to me. Profiteering from disasters is a felony here.
Well, unless you're a oil company, that is. Then you should feel free to fuck over whomever you want, as long as the political contributions keep flowing.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
If you've asked yourself who Mr. Bush will put in charge of the reconstruction efforts, we've got an answer.
Did you expect someone with a great deal of experience with such reconstruction matters?
quote:Republicans said Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, was in charge of the reconstruction effort, which reaches across many agencies of government and includes the direct involvement of Alphonso R. Jackson, secretary of housing and urban development.
By Dan Froomkin Special to washingtonpost.com Thursday, September 15, 2005; 12:00 PM
All you really need to know about the White House's post-Katrina strategy -- and Bush's carefully choreographed address on national television tonight -- is this little tidbit from the ninth paragraph of Elisabeth Bumiller and Richard W. Stevenson's story in the New York Times this morning:
"Republicans said Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, was in charge of the reconstruction effort."
Rove's leadership role suggests quite strikingly that any and all White House decisions and pronouncements regarding the recovery from the storm are being made with their political consequences as the primary consideration. More specifically: With an eye toward increasing the likelihood of Republican political victories in the future, pursuing long-cherished conservative goals, and bolstering Bush's image.
That is Rove's hallmark.
Rove, Bush's long-time political adviser and the "architect" of Bush's ascendancy, was rewarded after the 2004 election with a position at the White House with overt policy responsibilities. But whereas in some previous White Houses, governance took precedence over campaigning once the election was safely over, Rove has shown no sign of ever putting policy goals above political ones. (See my Rove profile.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well he was cleared of any wrongdoing in the outing of Valerie Plame after all, right?
I mean, it's not like the media or the public to forget something so outrageous just because there is some big disaster story to focus attention on.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
And as I heard two days ago, Bush has set it up so that the companies of his old pals, including Halliburton, will get most of the contracts for fixing up New Orleans.
So this, coupled with Bush's chance to affect the polls with his deeply-felt public apology amounts to not a bad month.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, (as I understand it) Haliburton already had the contract to do any cleanup involving Homeland Security (though they did not have to bid against anyone for that contract- something many, including Republicans are upset about) and since FEMA is under homeland Security now.... They got the contract by default (they're probably the best qualified to clean up the oil side of things anyway, despite their Evil Corperation status).
Nice how that all works out- coincidence, of course.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Further antics.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Funny story there- the bridges are indeed a waste of money, but it's Alaska's money to waste. If anyone should be calling for "a redirecting of funds" it's the people of Alaska.
It's amusing that they are trying to shame Alaska into helping New Orleans- when the Valdez went aground and destroyed Alaska's seafood industry, I did not see Lousiana rushing to help by forfitting state funding- in fact, they profited nicely from it by increased sales from their fishing industries.
Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black, right?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Black... as in crude oil? Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
As in shady as hell- like New Orleans politics. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Funny story there- the bridges are indeed a waste of money, but it's Alaska's money to waste."
Unless I'm missing something, it's federal money. And it was given to Alaska specifically for the bridges. It's not like the government was going to give Alaska half-a-billion dollars no matter what, just to spend on whatever they like.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No- it seems to be part of the government money each state gets (equally, I think) to spend on roads and services.
As long as we're talking about money going to waste- Wyoming has 180 million in Homeland Security money stshed away- mabye that could go to help people in New Orleans. To protect all those terror targets there (I mentioned this afew weeks back in another post).
The real issue is, of course, who should point a finger and tell another state how to spend it's budgeted money? Every state could point to it's neighbors in any crisis and show how wasteful they are in this or that.
Though that bridge thing is pretty strange.
Mabye it's one of those "use it or lose it" things where any unused government aid is not offered in the following fiscal year.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: not like the government was going to give Alaska half-a-billion dollars no matter what, just to spend on whatever they like.
*Stewie Griffin* "Sexy parties"
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
It's not whether anyone can make a decision whether to abandon New Orleans or not. It's up to the individual residents to decide whether or not to return to thier homes. All over the world people live near dangerous areas. But they don't leave because it's thier home. they grew up there and they love it no matter what the danger. People have always lived at the foot of mount vesuvius for example, and do they leave just because there will be another inevitable eruption in the future? They understand the risks involved with living where they do and they're obviously comfortable with those risks. I guess I'm lucky enough to live in a region where the worst mother nature can throw at us is about 9 meters of snow and 40 below weather. although we havn't had 9 meters of snow in nearly 15 years... Global warming ain't all bad!
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Nothing happens in Saskatchewan. NOTHING.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
U got that right. it's so borring here. no tornadoes, no earthquakes, tsunami's, volcanoes... dammit!
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Doesn't it just get fucking cold - like... blizzard/cold snap/people freezing in houses cold?
I've always loved the name: Saskatoon! Posted by Home Decor and Gardening (Member # 239) on :
MOOSE JAW
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Moose Jaw Rulez! I havn't heard of people freezing to deathin thier homes, us saskies are a hardy folk. I laugh when I hear people from Florida complain that is's freezing when it's only -20 celcius. HAHAHA!! You want freezing? try -45 celcius without the windchill. I hate the cold. I'd rather be in callifornia, mmmm Death Valley....
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
20 below in Florida, huh?
Posted by Home Decor and Gardening (Member # 239) on :
THE NEW TIM HORTON'S ON THATCHER!
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I meant, when Floridans come to saskatchewan, Had couple from Miami come to the 7-11 where i used to work back in march.
Posted by Home Decor and Gardening (Member # 239) on :
ON MAIN?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I've been happily enjoying the 70 degree weather this week....as I had no water, no job, no power, barely any gas for my car and untill yeasterday, no fresh foods..
Gotta love me a hurricaine.
Today I got it all back though- civilization restored in a ten hour period.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
no, i used to live in P.A. thats where I worked. I'm in Moose Jaw for school now. Do you like in Moose jaw? if so, do y'know where i can get sum grass? Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Home Decor and Gardening: ON MAIN?
Street per chance?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Grass? Want to feel it between your toes? Winters must be harsh if no grass grows! Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I forsee someone in FEMA hiring him on as a "consultant" for a huge sum of money.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
"Brown said officials need to "take inventory" of what's going on in a disaster to be able to answer questions to avoid appearing unaware of how serious a situation is."
yeah, i was listening to NPR this morning about that. Horrid. utterlly horrid. Avoiding to appear like Fucking Retards. That's like avoiding responciblity, right?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Oh, who needs a new thread for this.
More evidence of the profound and prolonged incompetence of the current administration.
By Joby Warrick Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 24, 2006; A02
In the 48 hours before Hurricane Katrina hit, the White House received detailed warnings about the storm's likely impact, including eerily prescient predictions of breached levees, massive flooding, and major losses of life and property, documents show.
A 41-page assessment by the Department of Homeland Security's National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), was delivered by e-mail to the White House's "situation room," the nerve center where crises are handled, at 1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, the day the storm hit, according to an e-mail cover sheet accompanying the document.
The NISAC paper warned that a storm of Katrina's size would "likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching" and specifically noted the potential for levee failures along Lake Pontchartrain. It predicted economic losses in the tens of billions of dollars, including damage to public utilities and industry that would take years to fully repair. Initial response and rescue operations would be hampered by disruption of telecommunications networks and the loss of power to fire, police and emergency workers, it said.
In a second document, also obtained by The Washington Post, a computer slide presentation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, prepared for a 9 a.m. meeting on Aug. 27, two days before Katrina made landfall, compared Katrina's likely impact to that of "Hurricane Pam," a fictional Category 3 storm used in a series of FEMA disaster-preparedness exercises simulating the effects of a major hurricane striking New Orleans. But Katrina, the report warned, could be worse.
The hurricane's Category 4 storm surge "could greatly overtop levees and protective systems" and destroy nearly 90 percent of city structures, the FEMA report said. It further predicted "incredible search and rescue needs (60,000-plus)" and the displacement of more than a million residents.
The NISAC analysis accurately predicted the collapse of floodwalls along New Orleans's Lake Pontchartrain shoreline, an event that the report described as "the greatest concern." The breach of two canal floodwalls near the lake was the key failure that left much of central New Orleans underwater and accounted for the bulk of Louisiana's 1,100 Katrina-related deaths.
The documents shed new light on the extent on the administration's foreknowledge about Katrina's potential for unleashing epic destruction on New Orleans and other Gulf Coast cities and towns. President Bush, in a televised interview three days after Katrina hit, suggested that the scale of the flooding in New Orleans was unexpected. "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm," Bush said in a Sept. 1 interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
The reports echo warnings given around the same time by Max Mayfield, head of the National Hurricane Center, who began sounding the alarm when forecasters first placed Katrina on a collision with the Gulf Coast on the evening of Aug. 26. But the FEMA and NISAC reports provided much more detail and covered a wider range of possible consequences, from damaged ports and oil terminals to spikes in energy prices.
The White House declined to comment yesterday on the specifics of the reports but noted that the president has repeatedly acknowledged his displeasure with preparations for Katrina. "No one was pleased with the response by the government -- federal, state or local," spokesman Trent Duffy said. "We have already taken steps to be better prepared for future hurricanes, as you saw in the response to the hurricanes that followed Katrina."
The disclosure of the reports comes as the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee prepares to convene new hearings today into the federal government's performance during Katrina. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), the committee's ranking Democrat, responded to the documents in a statement saying the administration's failure to fully heed the warnings of its analysts "compounded the tragedy."
"Two to three days before Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, it became clear that it would be the 'Big One' everyone has been talking about for years," Lieberman said.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So it's the standard splin of "so we messed up, but now WE have taken steps to protect against this in the future! It's a major victory for TEH REPUBLICANZ!"
You could apply this formula to most of their fuck-ups.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
I've been in New Orleans twice in the last week and will be heading that way in an hour or two. Place needs to have large tracks allowed to revert to green space. Much seems to simply be totaled.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So, did they ever finish getting the corpses out, or not?
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
If not I'm sure the gators are nice and fat by now.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 - The Bush administration, citing the confidentiality of executive branch communications, said Tuesday that it did not plan to turn over certain documents about Hurricane Katrina or make senior White House officials available for sworn testimony before two Congressional committees investigating the storm response.
The White House this week also formally notified Representative Richard H. Baker, Republican of Louisiana, that it would not support his legislation creating a federally financed reconstruction program for the state that would bail out homeowners and mortgage lenders. Many Louisiana officials consider the bill crucial to recovery, but administration officials said the state would have to use community development money appropriated by Congress.
I don't know, maybe there's some sort of national security issue involved. That seems to be their excuse for everything.
[ January 25, 2006, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Katrina was caused by 9/11!
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
This time the evidence of the profound incompetence of the current administration is on video.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Our ground doesn't shake or spit molten rock, our forests are too wet to burn and too cold to harbor deadly diseases, our rivers flood onto virtually empty plains, our storms are moderated by mountain ranges and alternating sea/land/sea formations in neighboring areas, and we have no mountains of our own to send lavines or mudslides to our cities...![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)