Ann wrote:

It's hopeless, Gideon, you're talking to a bunch of moonbats who
refuse to see any evil in the world that isn't named George Bush.
Personal responsibility? Pshaw. The front line (mayor, governor,
state emergency response team) not their fault, they were standing
around waving their hands in the air wailing to the Feds to kiss it
and make it better. Let's not even get into the welfare state so many
of the residents of New Orleans grew up in, had no reason to leave -
the state was supposed to take care of them, they know nothing else.

No one can accuse ABC News of being a GOP smokescreen:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/HurricaneK...C-RSSFeeds0312

But hysterics and misguided opinion will lead in this group.


You would think that George Soros would donate a small part of his vast
wealth to help the folks on the gulf coast. But instead he spends his
resources to fund MoveOn.org to spread anti-Bush propaganda.

It's interesting that the timeline Tom posted never mentions where
Governor Blanco refused federal assistance, or anything about the buses
the mayor left sitting in a parking lot to get flooded when they could
have been used to transport people to Houston, Shreveport, Little Rock,
etc. Even if he didn't care about the people, it would have made sense
to do that just to save the buses.

BTW, I sent my donation to a *Mississippi* disaster relief fund yesterday.

-Bob

Perhaps you could explain what "responsible for the flood
protection systems..." in your cited authority means, if not the levees.

presley wrote:
AHA - I found it. Below are the listed responsibilities of the Orleans Levee
Board:

"Directs the activities of the Orleans Levee Board responsible for the flood
protection systems, marinas, yacht harbors, the New Orleans Lakefront
Airport, a community center, land and lake front developments and management
of real estate and oil, gas and mineral rights in the Orleans Parish
metropolitan area. "

When a GOP article throws up a smokescreen, they don't expect people to do
research. The implication of the GOP article was that the Levee Board took
money that was supposed to be for building or maintaining levees and wasted
it on stuff like -WHOOPS - marinas, yacht harbors, land and lake front
developments, Airports, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. And guess what the
mandate of the Orleans Levee Board is? To take care of marinas, yacht
harbors, land and lake front developments, etc. To be fair, I suspect that
the Orleans Levee Board has some responsibility as to the repair of damaged
sections of Levee, but for sure the pumps, (since they are used in the
routine flooding that happens in New Orleans during every heavy rainstorm)
and various mechanical aspects of the Levee system. I'm not letting them off
the hook completely. But to pretend that it was all their responsibility is
a crock.
As I suspected, the BUILDER of the levees and where the primary financing
had to come through, was the Army Corps of Engineers - and that financing
was cut in the past 4 years. In 2002 the head of the Army Corps of Engineers
resigned specifically over under-funding of his agency's priorities -
including the New Orleans Levee system.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 08:40:04 GMT, "Gideon" wrote:

f the local Democrat morons


I'll kiss your elephant if you kiss my a**?



Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets. To plant a pine, one need only own a shovel.
-- Aldo Leopold

"Gideon" wrote in message
...
Screw the rich. It's really about time that we just gather
everybody's accumulated wealth plus their income and
divide it equally. We deserve a better system of wealth
distribution. That's why so many Americans are eager
to immigrate to Cuba.

================

And why not screw the rich? They've done a good job at screwing the rest of
the population in wages and job "insecurity" while huge corporations are
getting the last drop of blood from their workers. Who but the mega-rich are
making a killing on the gas prices where earning are up three hundred
percent? And guess which party's leaders are up to their behinds in
petroleum and petroleum profits. Screwing the rich makes sense to me.

BTW, your suggesting that people not happy with the rich getting richer
should move to Cuba sounds the way kids sound on a playground when they
don't like what they hear. What that statement has to do with this
discussion is beyond my comprehension.

There is no clarification of what is meant by the phrase "is reponsible for
the levees" in any website I can find, other than many assertions that the
Levee Board is responsible for the inspection and maintenance of the
levees - NOT the building of them. What complicates matters is that in the
19th century, levee boards all up and down the Mississippi were individually
in charge of building AND maintaining their own levees. However, in the 20th
century, the Army Corps of Engineers took over the building of levees in
most instances, partly because of the many devastasting floods all along the
Missisissippi from Iowa, Illinois and Missouri, through Tennessee and
Arkansas, to Mississippi and Louisiana. (It was recognized that rural,
agricultural states lacked the financial resources to accomplish this on
their own). An additional complication is that New Orleans AND its levees
are steadily sinking. So the responsibility is murky. It's not quite the
same situation as in other parts of the river, where the levees are stable.
Is it up to the Army Corps of Engineers to constantly add to (build) the
levees which are sinking - or are the local levee boards supposed to come up
with the engineering and earth moving equipment to organize this every
single year for hundreds of miles of levees ringing New Orleans? Because,
essentially, there needs to be substantial levee rebuilding every year to
counter the sinking. Then you have the additional arguments about why
should the federal government give "extra" money to Louisiana and New
Orleans for the levees there? And the answer is simple. Louisiana has always
"given" more value to the nation than it receives. Not in taxes, but in
providing deep water access to shipping for every kind of agricultural
product grown in the Midwest and every kind of industrial product made in
those states (Billions upon billions every year) and of course in supplying
workers and a network of pipelines and refineries to supply the oil and
natural gas that 30% of Americans rely upon.
Look, I'm not someone who lays the blame for all of this on Bush, I'm
merely pointing out that his policy of underfunding the Army Corps of
Engineers contributed to the immediate problem of this year's flooding in
New Orleans. In the long term, the entire ecosystem of coastal Louisiana has
to be reconsidered. Right now I don't see any way of guaranteeing the safety
of New Orleans in future storms. No one even seems to be looking at the very
real possibility that New Orleans could be hit by another hurricane this
very year. (Two or more hurricane strikes on the Gulf Coast per year are
pretty much standard - and this is a much more active year than normal). In
the long run, I think the southernmost parishes of Louisiana will have to be
completely abandoned, and the levees from New Orleans southward breached to
allow the Mississippi to flood the wetlands every year, as it did for
1,000,000 years before the coming of Europeans. That is the only way to
rebuild the wetlands, raise the level of the land, and rebuild the barrier
islands that protected the mainland in the past. That leaves the questions
of where and how do we transport oil and natural gas from the gulf, where
will the oil workers live, and where will we put the refineries? Those are
very serious questions, and questions which I'm not sure either we OR the
Bush Administration are prepared to deal with.
"William Brown" wrote in message
news:U2%Te.3571$Zp.2851@lakeread04...
Perhaps you could explain what "responsible for the flood
protection systems..." in your cited authority means, if not the levees.

presley wrote:
AHA - I found it. Below are the listed responsibilities of the Orleans
Levee Board:

"Directs the activities of the Orleans Levee Board responsible for the
flood protection systems, marinas, yacht harbors, the New Orleans
Lakefront Airport, a community center, land and lake front developments
and management of real estate and oil, gas and mineral rights in the
Orleans Parish metropolitan area. "

presley wrote:
There is no clarification of what is meant by the phrase "is
reponsible for the levees" in any website I can find, other than
many assertions that the Levee Board is responsible for the
inspection and maintenance of the
levees - NOT the building of them. What complicates matters is that
in the 19th century, levee boards all up and down the Mississippi
were individually in charge of building AND maintaining their own
levees. However, in the 20th century, the Army Corps of Engineers
took over the building of levees in most instances, partly because
of the many devastasting floods all along the Missisissippi from
Iowa, Illinois and Missouri, through Tennessee and Arkansas, to
Mississippi and Louisiana. (It was recognized that rural,
agricultural states lacked the financial resources to accomplish
this on their own). An additional complication is that New Orleans
AND its levees are steadily sinking. So the responsibility is
murky. It's not quite the same situation as in other parts of the
river, where the levees are stable. Is it up to the Army Corps of
Engineers to constantly add to (build) the levees which are sinking
- or are the local levee boards supposed to come up with the
engineering and earth moving equipment to organize this every
single year for hundreds of miles of levees ringing New Orleans?
Because, essentially, there needs to be substantial levee
rebuilding every year to counter the sinking. Then you have the
additional arguments about why should the federal government give
"extra" money to Louisiana and New Orleans for the levees there?
And the answer is simple. Louisiana has always "given" more value
to the nation than it receives. Not in taxes, but in providing deep
water access to shipping for every kind of agricultural product
grown in the Midwest and every kind of industrial product made in
those states (Billions upon billions every year) and of course
in supplying workers and a network of pipelines and refineries to
supply the oil and natural gas that 30% of Americans rely upon.
Look, I'm not someone who lays the blame for all of this on Bush,
I'm merely pointing out that his policy of underfunding the Army
Corps of Engineers contributed to the immediate problem of this
year's flooding in New Orleans. In the long term, the entire
ecosystem of coastal Louisiana has to be reconsidered. Right now I
don't see any way of guaranteeing the safety of New Orleans in
future storms. No one even seems to be looking at the very real
possibility that New Orleans could be hit by another hurricane this
very year. (Two or more hurricane strikes on the Gulf Coast per
year are pretty much standard - and this is a much more active year
than normal). In the long run, I think the southernmost parishes of
Louisiana will have to be completely abandoned, and the levees from
New Orleans southward breached to allow the Mississippi to flood
the wetlands every year, as it did for 1,000,000 years before the
coming of Europeans. That is the only way to rebuild the wetlands,
raise the level of the land, and rebuild the barrier islands that
protected the mainland in the past. That leaves the questions of
where and how do we transport oil and natural gas from the gulf,
where will the oil workers live, and where will we put the
refineries? Those are very serious questions, and questions which
I'm not sure either we OR the Bush Administration are prepared to
deal with.

Yeah. Let's defer everything until 2066.

snip

--


Travis in Shoreline Washington

"presley" wrote in message
...
snip

Look, I'm not someone who lays the blame for all of this on Bush, I'm
merely pointing out that his policy of underfunding the Army Corps of
Engineers contributed to the immediate problem of this year's flooding in
New Orleans.

How so? Any proposed or even deferred spending had no impact on the failed
section.....Obviously it is a bit early for any definitive cause of the
levee failure but it appears that the canal wall (inside the city) failed
not the actual lake levees on the perimeter and that this section was fairly
new........So your conclusion is based on what?
Of possibly more interest is that 25 years ago the Corps wanted to build a
storm barrier between lake Pontchartrain and the Gulf or limit the ability
of a hurricane surge from the Gulf making it to the city
levees.......Environmentalist opposition nixed that plan.

In the long term, the entire ecosystem of coastal Louisiana has to be
reconsidered. Right now I don't see any way of guaranteeing the safety of
New Orleans in future storms.

That's one of mans more arrogant characteristics....expecting
guarantees.....when natures fury is fully unleashed man is quite puny and
just goes along for the ride.....he then gets up and starts building all
over....hopefully with bigger & better dikesG.

No one even seems to be looking at the very real possibility that New
Orleans could be hit by another hurricane this very year. (Two or more
hurricane strikes on the Gulf Coast per year are pretty much standard - and
this is a much more active year than normal).

Only more active than normal for recent history....go back a ways and one
might claim the current frequency is now normal. However your comment begs
the question of "so what?" In fact if a new hurricane hit NO this week the
relative damage/ injury would be rather slight....indeed most people have
left and blowing down flood soaked houses creates little new damage. ....its
also as likely to go 25 years or more without a significant hurricane...the
only thing we know for sure is one will hit again but in who's lifetime is
anyone's guess.

In
the long run, I think the southernmost parishes of Louisiana will have to
be completely abandoned, and the levees from New Orleans southward
breached to allow the Mississippi to flood the wetlands every year, as it
did for 1,000,000 years before the coming of Europeans. That is the only
way to rebuild the wetlands, raise the level of the land, and rebuild the
barrier islands that protected the mainland in the past. That leaves the
questions of where and how do we transport oil and natural gas from the
gulf, where will the oil workers live, and where will we put the
refineries? Those are very serious questions, and questions which I'm not
sure either we OR the Bush Administration are prepared to deal with.

Not gonna happen nor should it......Historically the area was hit by
hurricanes, Barrier islands or otherwise......slightly less or more does not
outweigh the cost or loss of function.....Rod

For a little more on info on the know problems on Lake Pontchartrain


http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/

On 9/9/05 7:59 AM, in article , "Rod &
Betty Jo" wrote:


"presley" wrote in message
...
snip

Look, I'm not someone who lays the blame for all of this on Bush, I'm
merely pointing out that his policy of underfunding the Army Corps of
Engineers contributed to the immediate problem of this year's flooding in
New Orleans.

How so? Any proposed or even deferred spending had no impact on the failed
section.....Obviously it is a bit early for any definitive cause of the
levee failure but it appears that the canal wall (inside the city) failed
not the actual lake levees on the perimeter and that this section was fairly
new........So your conclusion is based on what?
Of possibly more interest is that 25 years ago the Corps wanted to build a
storm barrier between lake Pontchartrain and the Gulf or limit the ability
of a hurricane surge from the Gulf making it to the city
levees.......Environmentalist opposition nixed that plan.

In the long term, the entire ecosystem of coastal Louisiana has to be
reconsidered. Right now I don't see any way of guaranteeing the safety of
New Orleans in future storms.

That's one of mans more arrogant characteristics....expecting
guarantees.....when natures fury is fully unleashed man is quite puny and
just goes along for the ride.....he then gets up and starts building all
over....hopefully with bigger & better dikesG.

No one even seems to be looking at the very real possibility that New
Orleans could be hit by another hurricane this very year. (Two or more
hurricane strikes on the Gulf Coast per year are pretty much standard - and
this is a much more active year than normal).

Only more active than normal for recent history....go back a ways and one
might claim the current frequency is now normal. However your comment begs
the question of "so what?" In fact if a new hurricane hit NO this week the
relative damage/ injury would be rather slight....indeed most people have
left and blowing down flood soaked houses creates little new damage. ....its
also as likely to go 25 years or more without a significant hurricane...the
only thing we know for sure is one will hit again but in who's lifetime is
anyone's guess.

In
the long run, I think the southernmost parishes of Louisiana will have to
be completely abandoned, and the levees from New Orleans southward
breached to allow the Mississippi to flood the wetlands every year, as it
did for 1,000,000 years before the coming of Europeans. That is the only
way to rebuild the wetlands, raise the level of the land, and rebuild the
barrier islands that protected the mainland in the past. That leaves the
questions of where and how do we transport oil and natural gas from the
gulf, where will the oil workers live, and where will we put the
refineries? Those are very serious questions, and questions which I'm not
sure either we OR the Bush Administration are prepared to deal with.

Not gonna happen nor should it......Historically the area was hit by
hurricanes, Barrier islands or otherwise......slightly less or more does not
outweigh the cost or loss of function.....Rod

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 07:32:45 GMT, "Travis"
wrote:

snip


since you usually only post one liners, couldn't you learn to trim?



Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets. To plant a pine, one need only own a shovel.
-- Aldo Leopold

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in
Not gonna happen nor should it......Historically the area was hit by
hurricanes, Barrier islands or otherwise......slightly less or more does
not outweigh the cost or loss of function.....Rod

Apparently, you have not been following the many discussions about the
ecology of Southern Louisiana following the hurricane. ALL (not some) of
geologists, meteorologists, environmental engineers, and biologists agree
that a vast acreage of wetlands mitigates the effects of ALL hurricanes,
including category 5's. Some have estimated that every 20 miles of healthy
wetlands reduces storm surge by as much as 5-10 feet. That's pretty
significant when you see that most of the flooding in NOLA was about that
depth - and NOLA is 75-100 miles inland from the furthest extents of the
wetlands. Probably less than 20 miles of those wetlands are still healthy -
the rest have become marsh, ponds, or are simply lost to the encroaching
gulf of Mexico. (I suspect that you don't know what wetlands are - they are
meadows of grass and other plants that are under water for a period of time
every year - from a few days to a few months - in spite of the name, they
are NOT permanent bodies of water) The cost of deserting southern Louisiana
parishes is negligible if we're talking about Plaquemines, and other coastal
parishes. Their populations are quite small. The oil refineries and so forth
are a different matter, in terms of cost of moving to new sites. But the
cost of constantly rebuilding or shoring up infrastructure eventually will
exceed the value contributed by proximity to the off shore rigs.
Furthermore, thousands of miles of pipelines crisscrossing the wetlands of
Louisiana were once buried in the soil and muck and now are exposed to the
air and to sea water. Corrosion, rust and eventual complete decomposition
are inevitable under such conditions. That means oil spills galore - and
with oil becoming an ever more precious commodity, a stupid waste.
In regards to NOLA itself, it's a hard call. There's already talk of moving
the main port to Baton Rouge, which is less susceptible to the problems NOLA
has experienced. That would leave the decision about whether or not to leave
the higher portions of the city, particularly the French Quarter, more or
less intact, as a tourist destination, and let other, lower parts of the
city be abandoned, or whether to try to rebuild the entire thing, perhaps
with some new kind of building codes - houses on stilts, etc.

David Ross wrote:
In the meantime, the Los Angeles Times today reported that the Army
Corps of Engineers repeatedly asked for more funds to renovate and
strengthen the levies around New Orleans. But President Bush and
Congress repeatedly cut the funding to half or less than what the
Army requested.

There was a matching fund for levi maintenance and improvement that was
misappropriated by the city of NO and the state of L. The money was
there for the levis, but instead it got spent on other projects such as
the renovation of the city's Mardi Gras fountain and the construction
of a new state supreme courthouse. If federal funding had been cut
during the years preceding the tragedy (which I doubt is accurate if
that report is coming from The LA Times) then perhaps those earlier
misspent funds had something to do with it.

On 9/10/05 7:26 PM, in article , "Knack"
wrote:

David Ross wrote:
In the meantime, the Los Angeles Times today reported that the Army
Corps of Engineers repeatedly asked for more funds to renovate and
strengthen the levies around New Orleans. But President Bush and
Congress repeatedly cut the funding to half or less than what the
Army requested.

There was a matching fund for levi maintenance and improvement that was
misappropriated by the city of NO and the state of L. The money was
there for the levis, but instead it got spent on other projects such as
the renovation of the city's Mardi Gras fountain and the construction
of a new state supreme courthouse. If federal funding had been cut
during the years preceding the tragedy (which I doubt is accurate if
that report is coming from The LA Times) then perhaps those earlier
misspent funds had something to do with it.



It is spelled levee
Levi is one of the tribes of Israel
Levis are denim pants


C

B & J wrote
BTW, your suggesting that people not happy with the rich getting richer
should move to Cuba sounds the way kids sound on a playground when they
don't like what they hear. What that statement has to do with this
discussion is beyond my comprehension.

====================

Finish high school & improve your comprehension.

Somebody tossed out a typical, liberal, whiny-assed "screw the rich"
philosophy. I suggest moving to Cuba, which is the nearest nation
with a very strong "screw the rich" philosophy. I can't understand
why at least a few of the millions of Americans who embrace the liberal
redistribution of wealth aren't moving to Cuba. Oh, now I remember
why - because it doesn't work successfully. Screw the rich and
pretty soon there are no longer any entrepreneurs to provide decent
jobs.

There is a common name for those who hate the rich. "Losers."

"Gideon" wrote in message
...

Finish high school & improve your comprehension.

Somebody tossed out a typical, liberal, whiny-assed "screw the rich"
philosophy. I suggest moving to Cuba, which is the nearest nation
with a very strong "screw the rich" philosophy. I can't understand
why at least a few of the millions of Americans who embrace the liberal
redistribution of wealth aren't moving to Cuba. Oh, now I remember
why - because it doesn't work successfully. Screw the rich and
pretty soon there are no longer any entrepreneurs to provide decent
jobs.

There is a common name for those who hate the rich. "Losers."

BTW, I'll compare educational level with you anytime, although I won't
compare salary.

The garbage you spouted was the typical Republican mantra, trying to
convince the stupid that they aren't lying through their teeth. The rich are
taxed at a top rate of 25% and that is only on salary earners with income
over $200,000. Huge corporations usually pay far less because of loop holes.
The country is not going to "hell in a basket'" if the rich get taxed. I
find it impossible to cry crocodile tears or say, "Poor baby!"

The rest sounds as if you're one of the "whiny-assed" rich, who squeals
whenever he's asked to pay for the stupidity/ego of our present
administration. The mega-rich think that it is the responsibility of the
poor and middle class to pay for this war in money, blood, and broken
families. The Bush tribe, including Dubya and Jeb, certainly have none of
their sons or daughters involved in this fiasco.

I personally despise having any of my taxes spent on the Dubya's war in
Iraq, but I have no problem using that same money for infrastructure, the
NEA, health research, colleges, national parks, which Dubya is doing his
best to destroy, and other similar projects.

The rich and the mega-rich seem to feel they're privileged. Perhaps you
should move to Great Britain, where the wealthy can buy titles. No, you
wouldn't like that because the taxes are much higher there.

There's a common name for the people who think the rich are entitled.
"Greedy users."

JPS

Knack wrote:
David Ross wrote:
In the meantime, the Los Angeles Times today reported that the
Army Corps of Engineers repeatedly asked for more funds to
renovate and strengthen the levies around New Orleans. But
President Bush and Congress repeatedly cut the funding to half or
less than what the Army requested.

There was a matching fund for levi maintenance and improvement that
was misappropriated by the city of NO and the state of L. The money
was there for the levis, but instead it got spent on other projects
such as the renovation of the city's Mardi Gras fountain and the
construction of a new state supreme courthouse. If federal funding
had been cut during the years preceding the tragedy (which I doubt
is accurate if that report is coming from The LA Times) then
perhaps those earlier misspent funds had something to do with it.

I didn't see anyone on TV wearing Levi's.

--

Travis in Shoreline (just North of Seattle) Washington
USDA Zone 8
Sunset Zone 5