Global Warming Will Save America from the Right...Eventually

[Oric]

What I don't understand is, if these regions become de-populated .. Will the populations evaporate and cease to exist, or will they move to more liveable areas and cast their votes there ? What will change ...

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Imagine if someone on the right had wrote something similar following Katria...

"The blacks who controled New Orleans were told for years to prepare for the big one and they failed to take action. Now that their failure had destroyed their city and spread their population around the country we should make sure that we deny these people any political power where ever they end up. It is obvious from the disaster that was New Orleans that these people have no right to take part in the political process. After all we have seen what they did to New Orleans and we certainly don't want that repeated else where...."

People would probably say "Man, the levees are the property of the US Army Corps of Engineers and they are a federal agency, thus out of control of the members of the city. The residents and representatives of Louisiana have been pushing for years for upgraded flooding protection for New Orleans... I guess we should have listened to them."

Why, what were you thinking people would say?

Huh?

Many of us remember stories like this:

The unveiling of the Mardi Gras Fountain was celebrated this year in typical New Orleans style. The cost of $2.4 million was paid by the Orleans Levee Board, the state agency whose main job is to protect the levees surrounding New Orleans ? the same levees that failed after Katrina hit.

"They misspent the money," says Billy Nungesser, a former top Republican official who was briefly president of the Levee Board. "Any dollar they wasted was a dollar that could have went in the levees."

In fact, NBC News has uncovered a pattern of what critics call questionable spending practices by the Levee Board ? a board which, at one point, was accused by a state inspector general of "a long-standing and continuing disregard of the public interest."

Beyond the fountain, there's the $15 million spent on two overpasses that helped gamblers get to Bally's riverboat casino. Critics tried and failed to put some of that money into flood protection.

There was also $45,000 for private investigators to dig up dirt on radio host and board critic Robert Namer.

The people of NO made their own bed. They're corrupt and mis-directed money intended for the levees. Not to much mention foolish enough to biuld in such low-lying areas. I have no sympathy for those who build on the shifting sand of beaches frequented by Tropical storms and hurricanes either. It's nobody else's fault.

Fern

 

[NeoV]

as usual, read Rainsford's post and ask if you really have anything left to contribute to the discussion

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

People would probably say "Man, the levees are the property of the US Army Corps of Engineers and they are a federal agency, thus out of control of the members of the city. The residents and representatives of Louisiana have been pushing for years for upgraded flooding protection for New Orleans... I guess we should have listened to them."

Why, what were you thinking people would say?

Huh?

Many of us remember stories like this:

The unveiling of the Mardi Gras Fountain was celebrated this year in typical New Orleans style. The cost of $2.4 million was paid by the Orleans Levee Board, the state agency whose main job is to protect the levees surrounding New Orleans ? the same levees that failed after Katrina hit.

"They misspent the money," says Billy Nungesser, a former top Republican official who was briefly president of the Levee Board. "Any dollar they wasted was a dollar that could have went in the levees."

In fact, NBC News has uncovered a pattern of what critics call questionable spending practices by the Levee Board ? a board which, at one point, was accused by a state inspector general of "a long-standing and continuing disregard of the public interest."

Beyond the fountain, there's the $15 million spent on two overpasses that helped gamblers get to Bally's riverboat casino. Critics tried and failed to put some of that money into flood protection.

There was also $45,000 for private investigators to dig up dirt on radio host and board critic Robert Namer.

The people of NO made their own bed. They're corrupt and mis-directed money intended for the levees. Not to much mention foolish enough to biuld in such low-lying areas. I have no sympathy for those who build on the shifting sand of beaches frequented by Tropical storms and hurricanes either. It's nobody else's fault.

Fern

Except that the Levee board was in charge of day to day maintainence and inspection, not the design and construction. I have not seen one single argument that had the levees been more scrupulously inspected that they would have somehow survived a category 5 hurricaine that they were not designed for. Nice try though.

As for the 'they shouldn't live in places prone to disasters' argument, I guess we should abandon Los Angeles, Mexico should abandon Mexico City, and pretty much all of Florida should pack up and leave huh?

 

[Fern]

^ They were on the "weak" side of a Cat 4.

They weren't properley maintained either.

Add San Fran to the list of dubious choices for a hometown (also Seattle).

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern
^ They were on the "weak" side of a Cat 4.

They weren't properley maintained either.

Add San Fran to the list of dubious choices for a hometown (also Seattle).

Fern

Okay, so we are in agreement then. The levees, as designed and constructed by a federal agency which the citizens of New Orleans at best had trilfling control of, were incapable of withstanding the hurricane. With that in mind, are you making the claim that if maintainence money had been better spent that they somehow would have held? If not, I fail to see what you're trying to argue.

It is also a strange argument to propose the abandoning of cities worth trillions of dollars instead of spending billions to make them safe places to live.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
^ They were on the "weak" side of a Cat 4.

They weren't properley maintained either.

Add San Fran to the list of dubious choices for a hometown (also Seattle).

Fern

Okay, so we are in agreement then. The levees, as designed and constructed by a federal agency which the citizens of New Orleans at best had trilfling control of, I fail to how see people with annual multi-million dollar budgets are not seen as having control? were incapable of withstanding the hurricane. With that in mind, are you making the claim that if maintainence money had been better spent that they somehow would have held? If not, I fail to see what you're trying to argue.

It is also a strange argument to propose the abandoning of cities worth trillions of dollars instead of spending billions to make them safe places to live.

Abandon? I didn't say that. They can live where they wish. Just don't ask me to help subsidize (through Fed money) poor choices - by that I mean in a hurricane area on shifting beach sand or an under bowl. I think I'm in a majority with ath view as well (not that that matters much).

I could live anywhere I choose. I purposefully and carefuly chose a house built on rock (and made out of rock), away from hurricanes, in a place with no earthquakes to speak of, no wildfires , no tsunami's, no tornado's. A place with abundant water supplies (a big concern of mine even 15 yrs ago) and a lot of natural resources near an enourmous national/state park area (water galore and plenty of critters to eat if need be).

Oh, I see the benefits that they wish to enjoy. Just don't keep the benefits to yourself and ask me to pay your costs. (You get the view, I get the tab)

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Okay, so we are in agreement then. The levees, as designed and constructed by a federal agency which the citizens of New Orleans at best had trilfling control of, I fail to how see people with annual multi-million dollar budgets are not seen as having control? were incapable of withstanding the hurricane. With that in mind, are you making the claim that if maintainence money had been better spent that they somehow would have held? If not, I fail to see what you're trying to argue.

It is also a strange argument to propose the abandoning of cities worth trillions of dollars instead of spending billions to make them safe places to live.

Abandon? I didn't say that. They can live where they wish. Just don't ask me to help subsidize (through Fed money) poor choices - by that I mean in a hurricane area on shifting beach sand or an under bowl. I think I'm in a majority with ath view as well (not that that matters much).

I could live anywhere I choose. I purposefully and carefuly chose a house built on rock (and made out of rock), away from hurricanes, in a place with no earthquakes to speak of, no wildfires , no tsunami's, no tornado's. A place with abundant water supplies (a big concern of mine even 15 yrs ago) and a lot of natural resources near an enourmous national/state park area (water galore and plenty of critters to eat if need be).

Oh, I see the benefits that they wish to enjoy. Just don't keep the benefits to yourself and ask me to pay your costs. (You get the view, I get the tab)

That's a shockingly short sighted view of it. Every one of those places that I mentioned (with the possible exception of Florida) creates far more tax revenue then they get back. They are some of the richest areas of the entire world... they subsidize your life every day of the year.

If you choose to allow those places to be destroyed by natural disasters and not rebuilt it would be a crushing blow to our economy and the economy of the world. Simply put, it would be absolute insanity.

And by the way no, an organization with the budget you mentioned... a budget solely for maintainence and inspection has absolutely zero control over the design and construction of those multi billion dollar levees created by the federal agency the army corps of engineers. You already know this though, as I told you it in a previous posting. So... I don't know what your point is.