Mana, you need to get over yourself a little because I wasn't exactly trying to put together a thorough argument. It was mainly meant in jest, but you've been a bit humorless lately so I understand your reaction.
In all seriousness, no one is mentioning that New Orleans isn't merely a area prone to disaster, BUT ITS BELOW SEA LEVEL. There is a difference between sticking it out an inviting disaster.
As for just moving? Plenty did right after Katrina. They took the government money, and left, opening businesses as far away as New Jersey that I know personally (best po boys ever). Thats the main reason why the 9th Ward is still a disaster area... no one came back to rebuild it. They were the smart ones, and more should have followed their example with that government check they received.
I'm finding it very difficult to sympathize when it happens again, and I certainly don't want my tax dollars invested in an area that dares God to destroy it by its moronic location alone.
I know it doesn't feel good to say that people are stubborn idiots for living in a an area that invites disaster. I know it doesn't feel good to say that people should either abandon it or fix it themselves because it is a frivilous waste of money to maintain. But feelings have nothing to do with it, and mother nature does.
Its called common sense.
I know your argument, you've made it before here and I've heard it before from several other people. And until you respond to my criticism of your argument, you're just repeating yourself.
Yes, I am mostly humorless on the subject of New Orleans and the rebuilding of the city. Your lack of care (and others like you who think it's such a simple answer) for a major and historic American city baffles me. And it's the same thinking that causes the federal government to drag its feet on supplying the money it agreed to supply.
What if this were New York City? Or what if it were your city that was destroyed by a failure of a federal levee system? Think you don't have any levees? If there is a river nearby, chances are there is a federal system of levees to help keep it from flooding the area. Now what would you do if the federal government failed to upkeep those levees and thus a storm that the levees were supposedly designed to protect against failed and left your town destroyed? TOO BAD, it was your moronic decision to build your city near a river! Just move somewhere else!
You say New Orleans is different because it's mostly below sea level, but the only difference is a higher risk. What risk is acceptable to you, then? Who gets to decide that?
The fact is New Orleans is able to be protected. And the cost of building a system of protection for New Orleans is a literal drop in the bucket, about $10 billion. The Dutch Delta Works cost an estimated 5 billion euros, about $10 billion. Compare that to any other system of levees across the United States, or the estimated $3 trillion by the Washington Post that the Iraq War will end up costing. Little wonder why people in New Orleans think the federal government doesn't care about its own people.
Quote:
BOTTOM LINE: All the fucking jazz and shrimp in the world won't stop a city that is under sea level from flooding during a powerful hurricane.
This is simply not true (assuming you're being serious beyond the joke). Yes, some flooding will always happen, but building a protection system to keep disasters like Katrina from happening are easily possible.
Mana, your comparisons are beyond stretches. I already stated that there is a difference between sticking it out and tempting fate. My points rebutted yours, and I'm sorry if you don't agree, but I did target my comments at yours.
Mother nature is a fickle bitch, and one that is irresistable when it threatens. Time and nature erases anything that we attempt to achieve in overcoming it, and out best bet is to invest in areas that make the most sense. Below SEA level beside the SEA doesn't make the cut I have the same argument about Tornado Alley. Once again, reality doesn't care about NO's history and whether or not it sounds good. Reality does what it wants, and we are it's bitch.
And KG, if my post wasn't funny to you then its your loss, as I thought it was hilarious. And BTW, a very famous comedian made a lot of money based on humor like I posted:
Mana, your comparisons are beyond stretches. I already stated that there is a difference between sticking it out and tempting fate. My points rebutted yours, and I'm sorry if you don't agree, but I did target my comments at yours.
They are not beyond stretches, and you would agree that they are not if you studied up on the history of Katrina and what actually happened and the similar levee systems that exist throughout the U.S. And your points did little to rebut mine, in my opinion.
The reason I'm going on like I am about this is because you are an influential person here, and when you're ignorant on a subject it tends to breed ignorance. And that's not just here, this ignorance of Katrina seems rampant throughout the U.S. Notice I said ignorance, not stupidity, in case anyone takes that personally. I mean just a lack of knowing the facts of what happened.
I recommend for anyone interested to read more about Katrina and what really happened, to read this.
Well I read the article, and you are correct... N-O flooded because the levees broke... because its was built below a lake and a river and not JUST the ocean... SORRY. That doesn't excuse the city' existence... it only makes it all the more rediculous of a placement for a large amount of people. You're quibbling over small points. The point is New Orleans was doomed to disaster eventually.
I have an idea! Lets build a city at the bottom of the ocean, but make it watertight! When it eventually fails, lets just fix it all over again and act like it was the engineers and government that failed, and not the concept. Makes sense to me!
The arrogance of manklind never fails to amaze me.
The core of my argument still holds...
Does this make sense to you?
__________________
Last edited by Professor S : 08-28-2008 at 07:31 PM.
They are not beyond stretches, and you would agree that they are not if you studied up on the history of Katrina and what actually happened and the similar levee systems that exist throughout the U.S. And your points did little to rebut mine, in my opinion.
The reason I'm going on like I am about this is because you are an influential person here, and when you're ignorant on a subject it tends to breed ignorance. And that's not just here, this ignorance of Katrina seems rampant throughout the U.S. Notice I said ignorance, not stupidity, in case anyone takes that personally. I mean just a lack of knowing the facts of what happened.
I recommend for anyone interested to read more about Katrina and what really happened, to read this.
I still think the heart of the debate is rooted in the fact that rebuilding efficient levees that can withstand the impact of a Category 5 hurricane will cost a lot and require a lot of upkeep and take a long time to finish. So, what's the debate? I think people want to know if it is worth spending all the money when an evacuation is just as practical.
People could build their houses out of reinforced steel in tornado valley. But they don't. When a tornado comes they go to their basement and tough shit up. People who live in the path of Mount St. Helens could reinforce their properties with a lava-stopping barrier, but that's not really cost-effective or practical.
I guess the real debate probably lies in the Is It Worth It vs. Is It Not Worth It argument. Also, as Professor S implied...
as T (time) approaches Infinity, Nature > Humans
[ T ---> ∞ , N>H ]
That is to say...over a period of time, nature ALWAYS beats humans. So, a levee system will be an initial investment upfront, plus the cost of repairs until the end of human existance.
Personally, I'd rather our government invest billions of dollars in an asteroid defense system. Me? I personally don't give a shit about New Orleans. I'm more worried about defending earth from an oncoming asteroid or comet...then we will really have problems.
The fact is New Orleans is able to be protected. And the cost of building a system of protection for New Orleans is a literal drop in the bucket, about $10 billion.
Am I the only one that thought this sounded weird? How is ten billion a drop in the bucket? Why does the federal government have to pay for levees in New Orleans? If you care so much about the people in New orleans, do something about it yourself, start a charity, or go help with relief or somethng, don't stand there and go "Awe shucks, the government should really go throw some money at New Orleans" Why should my tax dollars go to something like that?New Orleans should raise it's own money for the levees, and then build them, not stick out their hand and expect the government to take care of them because they decided to live there. If it's such an important port, then sure the buisnesses of that area can afford to protect their investment? This is the attitude of a socialist mindset, that it should be the governments concern to take care of people. Let the New Orleans community figure it out themselves. Now, during the fact, yes the government should help, but after the hurricanes over, it is not the government's responsibilty to rebuild for people. Sure it's a shame and all, but do you see us in the midwest crying for credit cards and trailers and billions of dollars in new housing whenever a tornado comes through?
__________________
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
Of my weaknesses I'm desperately aware. Do I even dare to repent again? Why (would you) endure the pain?
Am I the only one that thought this sounded weird? How is ten billion a drop in the bucket? Why does the federal government have to pay for levees in New Orleans? If you care so much about the people in New orleans, do something about it yourself, start a charity, or go help with relief or somethng, don't stand there and go "Awe shucks, the government should really go throw some money at New Orleans" Why should my tax dollars go to something like that?New Orleans should raise it's own money for the levees, and then build them, not stick out their hand and expect the government to take care of them because they decided to live there. If it's such an important port, then sure the buisnesses of that area can afford to protect their investment? This is the attitude of a socialist mindset, that it should be the governments concern to take care of people. Let the New Orleans community figure it out themselves. Now, during the fact, yes the government should help, but after the hurricanes over, it is not the government's responsibilty to rebuild for people. Sure it's a shame and all, but do you see us in the midwest crying for credit cards and trailers and billions of dollars in new housing whenever a tornado comes through?
Read up on your history of what happened before you respond again. It was a failure of federal system of levees. Yes, responsibility should and IS taken by the local government, businesses, and people. To say otherwise is naive and shows your lack of any idea of what is going on in New Orleans today. But when a federal system FAILS, I also expect the federal government to take responsibility. IF the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had spent the original around $5 billion correctly, they would not have had to rebuild it, and the federal government wouldn't have had to spend many more billions of dollars to make up for the failure and all its effects.
And yes, I think $10 billion is a drop in the bucket when we spend $3 trillion on a war overseas and pour billions of dollars into Iraq to rebuild that country.
I'll have to respond to the rest later, because this is really taking up all my work time.
Re: An Open Letter to New Orleans Residents
Hybrid Mode
