Whatever the situation, whatever the problem, today's "liberals" have only one response: anger. It is their universal emotion, in place of caring, empathy, diligence, skill.
Yep, the President can head over to the disaster site and frown thoughtfully at it from a helicopter, then get in everybody's way at the headquarters, when he'd be more effective at the other end of a phone line/radio link far away and out of the way of people who actually are going to implement what they've trained for.
Then again, BDS makes no sense, as Clinton Hatred and Reagan Loathing didn't either.
You are partly right. When it comes to natural disasters, their response is anger, either at the President, for not signing the Kyoto treaty to turn our economy over the the U.N.O. to reduce us to a "Third World" level of poverty (and then where would their foreign aid money come from?), or else they curse the God they don't believe in.
But when it comes to man-made disasters such as the destruction of the World Trade Center (in which 3,000 Americans were murdered) on September 11, 2001, then they have no anger, no anger at all, only caring and empathy for the poor, misunderstood terrorists. Again, President Bush's refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty was to blame.
Bush knows how to be a good leader. A good leader gets the hell out of the way so those that have the skills can get the job done. If Bush has to be there himself, then he should fire the people he has doing the job as it would show their incompetence. The best thing a good manager can do is ask his people what they need, make sure they get those resources and then let them do their jobs.
Sigh. People are completely ignorant of things that happened before they were born, and worse, they are completely ignorant of their ignorance. "Hurricanes have never been this intense! It must be global warming!" They don't even know what they don't know.
Mike wrote:
"Then again, BDS makes no sense, as Clinton Hatred and Reagan Loathing didn't either."
Right about the first two, but Reagan Loathing makes perfect sense, and, looking back, I'm rather surprised there isn't more of it. If I were a Communist or a socialist, I'd hate Reagan, too. It was President Reagan, more than any other man, who brought down Communism in Europe and Russia. It was Reagan, more than any other President, who began to bring socialism, Big Government, the welfare state, the mixed economy, into question, and to prepare the way to a return to capitalism (the Unknown Ideal). Bush is very liberal (in the modern, New Deal sense) compared to Reagan. Leftists, if they had any vision at all beyond the range of the moment, should stop hating Bush nearly so much and hate Reagan they way they still hate McCarthy.
President Ronald Reagan, like Senator Joe McCarthy, like Senator Barry Goldwater, like Whittaker Chambers, like Ayn Rand, like E. Merrill Root, was the arch-enemy of the collectivism of the Left.
Yes, like H. L. "Bill" Richardson (Slightly To The Right!), I am a name-dropping Conservative. J. Edgar Hoooooooover!
No kidding, Jerry. Katrina was the third worst hurricane on record, meteorologically speaking. The key, though it "on record". Who knows how bad some of the storms that weren't measured were. Furthermore, weather on this planet moves in complex cycles, which almost certainly are more than a century of our years long. We've only been making modern measurements for about 120 years, so we have no way to say objectively whether the storm frequency and intensity in the last few years is due even in part to "global warming" or whether this is simply part of the cycle.
Hey, you wanna know how all the environmentally-correct, spiritually enlightened Native Americans who *really* are the rightful owners of New Orleans historically dealt with the hurricanes from the Great Spirit?
Since 2003 the federal government has cut much of the funding for the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, which was suppose to be strengthening levees around New Orleans. In 2004 Bush proposed spending only 20% of the amount recommended by the Army Corps of Engineers for Lake Pontchartrain.
Much of this funding was apparently to raise the level of levees that were sinking, and there apparently was an unfinished bridge and levee project underway at the site of the 17th Street Canal failure, which is the most serious failure. I'm sure people will look into whether the cut in funding contributed to this disaster.
evidently it's not just Bush's fault. I've seen an african-american minister in LA calling the hurricane an "angry sister" getting revenge on the deep south and crazy pro-lifers calling it the spirit of aborted babies because of all of the abortion clinics in NO. I sh*t you not.
YMMV depending on which wacko group you belong to, I guess.
I'm sure people will look into whether the cut in funding contributed to this disaster.
I'm sure crazy conspiracy theorists and Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers will scream and point to this, instead of asking real questions. How much was New Orleans spending to keep itself from going under? How much was Louisiana spending?
Regardless of the intensity of past hurricanes, and the detruction to the natural habitat caused by them, I think it is safe to say that in terms of disrupting human lives, and damaging man-made structures, Katrina can be called the worst in recorded history of the United States. Given that the entire past populations of the three states mainly affected were less than the current populations along the shorelines, I don't think it is hyperbolic to claim "Worst Ever" status.
However, calling the destruction "like Hiroshima" or "our Tsunami" is hyperbolic and parochial. But human beings can be expected to exaggerate classify personal disasters over impersonal disasters. "My" disaster will always be greater than "Your" disaster when it comes to human relations. Its just human nature.
Interestingly, the people I have talked to today about New Orleans in particular have all reacted with three reactions: 1) Sympathy, 2) mild contempt for the arrogance of people who refused to take warnings seriously, and 3) wondering why people would live in a city 20 feet below sea level that just happens to be located right next to the sea. One commenter said "you have to wonder about the intelligence of someone who would live there."
That is an interesting mix of reactions. No one is suggesting that we shouldn't do everything we can to help those folks out. But people are questioning the wisdom of rebuilding a city that by all natural rights shouldn't even exist where it does. But the overriding reaction is "even stupid people should be helped."
Oh, and as for the blame Bush crowd. They would blame him for pulling a publicity stunt if he had shown up before they started blaming him for staying away. It is not worth the energy to get upset about the raving loonies of the left.
Not everything is partisan. As a Republican, I would do everything I could to help Mary Landreau right now. And if that accrued to her political benefit, so be it. In the grand scheme of things, Senators are SUPPOSED to represent their states, not their parties.
That is what both Senators Landreau and Vitter are doing now. I just watched a news conference where they shared the stage, Landreau speaking first because of seniority. There was not one hint, nada, zippo, zero, of partisanship. There was only a genuine desire to help their people - as it should be.
By the way, as to my previous comments about people's 3-part reactions, no one is blaming anyone who was unable to evacuate the city due to lack of transportation. But people are mildly contemptuous of those who decided to ride out the storm in their homes instead of at least going to the Superdome.
An interesting thing to consider is that the wealthier people are, the fewer of them die when hit by a disaster of this scale. Their homes are better built and their ability to escape is so much greater than truly poor people. And your average New Orleans resident would be considered wealthy by most of the world population. Yes, even those living "below the poverty line" would be so considered.
If this hurricane had hit just 50 years ago odds are it would have been comparable in death and damage scale to a tsunami.
Scott Harris: Oh, and as for the blame Bush crowd. They would blame him for pulling a publicity stunt if he had shown up before they started blaming him for staying away.
Exactly. He necessarily will be accused of indifference and/or political opportunism. If he smiles while answering a question about the disaster, that will show he's callous. If he looks grim, he's just pretending to care ...
caltechgirl: Furthermore, weather on this planet moves in complex cycles, which almost certainly are more than a century of our years long.
I hear some comments questioning the wisdom of living below sea level that close to the sea. But don't the dutch have the same challenge? The North Sea can be very nasty at times.
Almost any where people live, there is some kind of natural disaster that can occur. Except here in South Jersey were disasters are an extreme rarity - of course the local nuke could always turn into a mushroom cloud.
I would say people can choose to live any where they like. But they should take prudent steps, collectively and/or individually, to prepare for potential known disasters.
Almost any where people live, there is some kind of natural disaster that can occur. Except here in South Jersey were disasters are an extreme rarity - of course the local nuke could always turn into a mushroom cloud.
Actually- no. A nuclear power plant cannot turn into a mushroom cloud. Ever.
It was mentioned in an earlier thread that it is human nature to gamble with the forces of nature. Living on the coast is a gamble human beings are willing to make. Should the Federal government (ie- taxpayers) be required to fund rebuilding a city below sea level on the Gulf Coast? Good question. It will happen because we as a species don't like to admit defeat.
I suppose it isn't surprising that those who arrogantly assume that the President of the United States of America can alter the world's environment by signing a piece of paper (Kyoto) also believe that the President also has the power to manipulate hurricanes and direct them according to his whims.
And these people claim to be smarter than conservatives??? Reality-based community my ass.
Army Corps of Engineers: These walls and levees were designed to withstand a fast moving category 3 hurricane. Katrina was a strong 4 at landfall, and conditions exceeded the design.
Q: Why only Category 3 protection?
Army Corps of Engineers: That is what we were authorized to do.
I assume that means someone thought it wouldn't be cost-effective to upgrade the levees because category 4/5 were highly unlikely to strike New Orleans.
Almost any where people live, there is some kind of natural disaster that can occur. Except here in South Jersey were disasters are an extreme rarity - of course the local nuke could always turn into a mushroom cloud.
Actually- no. A nuclear power plant cannot turn into a mushroom cloud. Ever.
I meant that as tongue in cheek.
On any potential calmity one makes a cost/benefit analysis. What is the cost, what is the benefit, what is the probability something extremely bad will happen. How much insurance do you have on your house, your car, your body? Resources are finite and any governmental body has to put them where citizens lobby the most. Had they spent the money to upgrade the levees, the local officials might very well have been riden out on a rail as spending the money foolishly just to give their brother-in-law a constuction contract.
I don't think there are any "atta-boys" in government, only "gotchas".
Ted - The Netherlands don't seem to get hit with hurricanes, but flooding can be a problem, hence that story about the little Dutch boy putting his finger in the dyke. [SMA - behave! And the rest of you! :) ]
The combination of "below sea level", "coastal" and "hurricane" seem to me to be a real bad one. And, for the finale, let's add "Mississippi River".
From 1970 to 1994, the Atlantic was relatively quiet, with no more than three major hurricanes in any year and none at all in three of those years.
People seem to think that those 24 years were "normal" rather than a divergence from the norm. In fact, catastrophic hurricaines aren't uncommon after all.
My wife's family is from the Tidewater area of Virginia, and they've got family stories to tell about bad years of 'canes. Then there's 1954, when Hazel flooded Toronto. Yes, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA.
Dyke [dik] (plural dykes) n. an offensive tern for a lesbian.
Dike [dik] (plural dikes) n. 1. embankment to prevent floods: an embankment built along the shore of a sea or lake or beside a river to hold back the water and prevent flooding; 2. barrier: a barrier or obstacle meant to keep something out; 3. causeway: a raised roadway across a swamp or body of water; 4. ditch: a drainage ditch or other artificial watercourse; 5. geology long mass of igneous rock: a vertical or near-vertical mass of igneous rock that has forced its way upward through overlying strata.
Hey Mike, it might be easier to behave if you used the correct spelling. (:o
I heard an interview with a Dutch official in charge of their dikes and levees. He said that he had visited New Orleans and the levees in New Orleans are designed to handle things up to a 100-year storm. In the Netherlands they have tried to engineer their dikes to handle up to a 10,000-year event. He said the cost difference between a 100 year system of dikes and levees and a 10,000 year system is less than the cost of disaster recovery after a single failure, so the Dutch think the 10,000 year system is more cost effective.
As Insty said, we need to harden our systems. In an age of terror, resilience is a worthwhile public good. However, its something that the market is often (not always, just often) not interested in.
Reliability is often the enemy of efficiency.
I've thought for a long while that we as Americans live in a fragile environment. Granted we have great capability to fix things that get shattered, but still I'd like to see a little more iron, and a little less plastic, if you catch my metaphor.
Of course, gov't actions tend to stifle the cutting edge, and they often cause corruption, but then strictly capitalist methods have their faults too. I'm not sure where to draw the line, although I'd tend to draw it pretty close to the capitalist end.
All systems and models are inadequate in usually multiple ways which is why we hybridize.
And, yeah, it sounds like the Dutch might have been smarter than us. But one of the great strengths of America is that we're shameless, we steal from the best.
While I certainly don't follow Kos, the "blaming of Bush" I've read falls into two main categories:
1) Emergency Personnel diverted to Iraq (helecopters not showing up to help seal the dike)
2) Money diverted from the construction project to Iraq and the GWOT/GSAVE.
As For:
"How much was New Orleans spending to keep itself from going under? How much was Louisiana spending?"
This is definately an issue, but there's earthquakes in the west, tornados in the plains, riverfloods in a ton of places and hurricanes in the south east. That question rarely gets asked, and picking this one to start bitching that the locals didn't do enough is hardly fair. The federal gov bails out other places just the same. If we want to start pushing for that bailout to require qualifications, that's fine, but we need to put them in place before the disaster.
"boy putting his finger in the dyke. [SMA - behave! And the rest of you! :) ]"
I shall honor the integrity and sanctity of a woman's body, whether she be gynosexual or androsexual. I hate all rapists. Sooner should I have my member severed than used to such dishonor.
Oooh, Ooooh, Ooooh...! Does the fact that these storms are replaying at the 50's and 60's era strenght mean it's JFK's fault too? How about RFK? (We all know Teddy's a blowhard, so these might be his fault too.)
Oooooh, even better...since they rotate on a decadial scale, are the 'first people'/native americans to blame? Or is it only us EEEEHHHHHVVVVUUUULLLL whitey asss folks that don't 'love earth mother/gaia' the way some wackjobs want us to?
Those are all retorical. I know, it's all some secret right-wing conspircy to control the weather and wipe out the stronghold of straight-ticket lefties. ;)
This reminds me of the infamous Columbus Day Storm of October 12, 1962. I was there, in Monmouth, Oregon, when it happened.
Rhianna wrote:
"Oooh, Ooooh, Ooooh...! Does the fact that these storms are replaying at the 50's and 60's era strenght mean it's JFK's fault too? How about RFK? (We all know Teddy's a blowhard, so these might be his fault too.)"
If you're on the Right, you might want to blame Lee Harvey Oswald. If you're on the Left, you may want to blame Joe McCarthy.
That question rarely gets asked, and picking this one to start bitching that the locals didn't do enough is hardly fair.
More like the question rarely gets noticed. I live in a tornado-friendly state, and we do a lot to prepare against the worst. California has specific building codes for earthquake resistance. Each region prepares for its own disasters, and we have a Federal Emergency Management Agency to coordinate when the disaster exceeds local capabilities.
The Blame Bush reasons so far are from a position of ignorance, not knowledge, and that is why they are suspect. Every single form of it comes down to "we don't know how much this may have helped, so by not having it, it must be Bush's fault." "We don't know"'s aren't valid criticism, they're whinging.
On your two points, Tito:
1) There is a sufficiency of Army Corps of Engineers personnel and equipment. What is missing is a solid, reliable plan of action, and that is due to the lack of knowledge about the circumstance. It has been pointed out that dropping 3000 lb bags may not be such a good idea, as they could turn into more debris instead of helping to plug the gaps. Not to mention that the vast majority of our armed forces are NOT in Iraq. . .
2) Odd that someone should criticize a preventative action by claiming it inhibited another preventative action. As I pointed out, New Orleans and Louisiana had specific responsibility for maintaining their safety over and above the Federal involvement. But the best-case plans I have heard for the restructuring would not have had it completed until long after 2005, so we'd have watched several billion dollars of Federal construction money swept away by Katrina. Maybe, if you insist on Federal primary involvement, if a prior President had initiated such a project New Orleans would have been protected. . .
Operation Blessing? No thank you. I will donate to the Red Cross or Noah's Wish. No way I am donating to an organization under the wing of Pat Robertson. The money will wind up in his pocket and not out helping the people.
Screw 'em.
And remember, come next election.
Then again, BDS makes no sense, as Clinton Hatred and Reagan Loathing didn't either.
Photon Courier:
You are partly right. When it comes to natural disasters, their response is anger, either at the President, for not signing the Kyoto treaty to turn our economy over the the U.N.O. to reduce us to a "Third World" level of poverty (and then where would their foreign aid money come from?), or else they curse the God they don't believe in.
But when it comes to man-made disasters such as the destruction of the World Trade Center (in which 3,000 Americans were murdered) on September 11, 2001, then they have no anger, no anger at all, only caring and empathy for the poor, misunderstood terrorists. Again, President Bush's refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty was to blame.
Any article there can be considered as reliable or relevant as an Elvis story in the Weekly World News.
"Then again, BDS makes no sense, as Clinton Hatred and Reagan Loathing didn't either."
Right about the first two, but Reagan Loathing makes perfect sense, and, looking back, I'm rather surprised there isn't more of it. If I were a Communist or a socialist, I'd hate Reagan, too. It was President Reagan, more than any other man, who brought down Communism in Europe and Russia. It was Reagan, more than any other President, who began to bring socialism, Big Government, the welfare state, the mixed economy, into question, and to prepare the way to a return to capitalism (the Unknown Ideal). Bush is very liberal (in the modern, New Deal sense) compared to Reagan. Leftists, if they had any vision at all beyond the range of the moment, should stop hating Bush nearly so much and hate Reagan they way they still hate McCarthy.
President Ronald Reagan, like Senator Joe McCarthy, like Senator Barry Goldwater, like Whittaker Chambers, like Ayn Rand, like E. Merrill Root, was the arch-enemy of the collectivism of the Left.
Yes, like H. L. "Bill" Richardson (Slightly To The Right!), I am a name-dropping Conservative. J. Edgar Hoooooooover!
"Oh wait. It's Americans that are suffering. Well, they deserve it don't they?"
Once again the Left proves it has nothing to offer.
They died.
Much of this funding was apparently to raise the level of levees that were sinking, and there apparently was an unfinished bridge and levee project underway at the site of the 17th Street Canal failure, which is the most serious failure. I'm sure people will look into whether the cut in funding contributed to this disaster.
YMMV depending on which wacko group you belong to, I guess.
I'm sure crazy conspiracy theorists and Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers will scream and point to this, instead of asking real questions. How much was New Orleans spending to keep itself from going under? How much was Louisiana spending?
However, calling the destruction "like Hiroshima" or "our Tsunami" is hyperbolic and parochial. But human beings can be expected to exaggerate classify personal disasters over impersonal disasters. "My" disaster will always be greater than "Your" disaster when it comes to human relations. Its just human nature.
Interestingly, the people I have talked to today about New Orleans in particular have all reacted with three reactions: 1) Sympathy, 2) mild contempt for the arrogance of people who refused to take warnings seriously, and 3) wondering why people would live in a city 20 feet below sea level that just happens to be located right next to the sea. One commenter said "you have to wonder about the intelligence of someone who would live there."
That is an interesting mix of reactions. No one is suggesting that we shouldn't do everything we can to help those folks out. But people are questioning the wisdom of rebuilding a city that by all natural rights shouldn't even exist where it does. But the overriding reaction is "even stupid people should be helped."
What do you call that? Pragmatic benevolence?
Not everything is partisan. As a Republican, I would do everything I could to help Mary Landreau right now. And if that accrued to her political benefit, so be it. In the grand scheme of things, Senators are SUPPOSED to represent their states, not their parties.
That is what both Senators Landreau and Vitter are doing now. I just watched a news conference where they shared the stage, Landreau speaking first because of seniority. There was not one hint, nada, zippo, zero, of partisanship. There was only a genuine desire to help their people - as it should be.
If this hurricane had hit just 50 years ago odds are it would have been comparable in death and damage scale to a tsunami.
Exactly. He necessarily will be accused of indifference and/or political opportunism. If he smiles while answering a question about the disaster, that will show he's callous. If he looks grim, he's just pretending to care ...
caltechgirl: Furthermore, weather on this planet moves in complex cycles, which almost certainly are more than a century of our years long.
But less than a century of Martian years?
Almost any where people live, there is some kind of natural disaster that can occur. Except here in South Jersey were disasters are an extreme rarity - of course the local nuke could always turn into a mushroom cloud.
I would say people can choose to live any where they like. But they should take prudent steps, collectively and/or individually, to prepare for potential known disasters.
Actually- no. A nuclear power plant cannot turn into a mushroom cloud. Ever.
It was mentioned in an earlier thread that it is human nature to gamble with the forces of nature. Living on the coast is a gamble human beings are willing to make. Should the Federal government (ie- taxpayers) be required to fund rebuilding a city below sea level on the Gulf Coast? Good question. It will happen because we as a species don't like to admit defeat.
And these people claim to be smarter than conservatives??? Reality-based community my ass.
Indeed. We tend to be safer individually and collectively when we're wealthy.
On a semi-related note:
I assume that means someone thought it wouldn't be cost-effective to upgrade the levees because category 4/5 were highly unlikely to strike New Orleans.
Actually- no. A nuclear power plant cannot turn into a mushroom cloud. Ever.
I meant that as tongue in cheek.
On any potential calmity one makes a cost/benefit analysis. What is the cost, what is the benefit, what is the probability something extremely bad will happen. How much insurance do you have on your house, your car, your body? Resources are finite and any governmental body has to put them where citizens lobby the most. Had they spent the money to upgrade the levees, the local officials might very well have been riden out on a rail as spending the money foolishly just to give their brother-in-law a constuction contract.
I don't think there are any "atta-boys" in government, only "gotchas".
Thank you!
The combination of "below sea level", "coastal" and "hurricane" seem to me to be a real bad one. And, for the finale, let's add "Mississippi River".
Dude, living there is just asking for it.
People seem to think that those 24 years were "normal" rather than a divergence from the norm. In fact, catastrophic hurricaines aren't uncommon after all.
My wife's family is from the Tidewater area of Virginia, and they've got family stories to tell about bad years of 'canes. Then there's 1954, when Hazel flooded Toronto. Yes, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA.
Dyke [dik] (plural dykes) n. an offensive tern for a lesbian.
Dike [dik] (plural dikes) n. 1. embankment to prevent floods: an embankment built along the shore of a sea or lake or beside a river to hold back the water and prevent flooding; 2. barrier: a barrier or obstacle meant to keep something out; 3. causeway: a raised roadway across a swamp or body of water; 4. ditch: a drainage ditch or other artificial watercourse; 5. geology long mass of igneous rock: a vertical or near-vertical mass of igneous rock that has forced its way upward through overlying strata.
Hey Mike, it might be easier to behave if you used the correct spelling. (:o
Reliability is often the enemy of efficiency.
I've thought for a long while that we as Americans live in a fragile environment. Granted we have great capability to fix things that get shattered, but still I'd like to see a little more iron, and a little less plastic, if you catch my metaphor.
Of course, gov't actions tend to stifle the cutting edge, and they often cause corruption, but then strictly capitalist methods have their faults too. I'm not sure where to draw the line, although I'd tend to draw it pretty close to the capitalist end.
All systems and models are inadequate in usually multiple ways which is why we hybridize.
And, yeah, it sounds like the Dutch might have been smarter than us. But one of the great strengths of America is that we're shameless, we steal from the best.
1) Emergency Personnel diverted to Iraq (helecopters not showing up to help seal the dike)
2) Money diverted from the construction project to Iraq and the GWOT/GSAVE.
As For:
"How much was New Orleans spending to keep itself from going under? How much was Louisiana spending?"
This is definately an issue, but there's earthquakes in the west, tornados in the plains, riverfloods in a ton of places and hurricanes in the south east. That question rarely gets asked, and picking this one to start bitching that the locals didn't do enough is hardly fair. The federal gov bails out other places just the same. If we want to start pushing for that bailout to require qualifications, that's fine, but we need to put them in place before the disaster.
I shall honor the integrity and sanctity of a woman's body, whether she be gynosexual or androsexual. I hate all rapists. Sooner should I have my member severed than used to such dishonor.
Oooooh, even better...since they rotate on a decadial scale, are the 'first people'/native americans to blame? Or is it only us EEEEHHHHHVVVVUUUULLLL whitey asss folks that don't 'love earth mother/gaia' the way some wackjobs want us to?
Those are all retorical. I know, it's all some secret right-wing conspircy to control the weather and wipe out the stronghold of straight-ticket lefties. ;)
Rhianna wrote:
"Oooh, Ooooh, Ooooh...! Does the fact that these storms are replaying at the 50's and 60's era strenght mean it's JFK's fault too? How about RFK? (We all know Teddy's a blowhard, so these might be his fault too.)"
If you're on the Right, you might want to blame Lee Harvey Oswald. If you're on the Left, you may want to blame Joe McCarthy.
Yeah, upon reflection that occurred to me - long after I hit post. Like this morning.
Oh well, I'm good with words. Just not perfect.
More like the question rarely gets noticed. I live in a tornado-friendly state, and we do a lot to prepare against the worst. California has specific building codes for earthquake resistance. Each region prepares for its own disasters, and we have a Federal Emergency Management Agency to coordinate when the disaster exceeds local capabilities.
The Blame Bush reasons so far are from a position of ignorance, not knowledge, and that is why they are suspect. Every single form of it comes down to "we don't know how much this may have helped, so by not having it, it must be Bush's fault." "We don't know"'s aren't valid criticism, they're whinging.
On your two points, Tito:
1) There is a sufficiency of Army Corps of Engineers personnel and equipment. What is missing is a solid, reliable plan of action, and that is due to the lack of knowledge about the circumstance. It has been pointed out that dropping 3000 lb bags may not be such a good idea, as they could turn into more debris instead of helping to plug the gaps. Not to mention that the vast majority of our armed forces are NOT in Iraq. . .
2) Odd that someone should criticize a preventative action by claiming it inhibited another preventative action. As I pointed out, New Orleans and Louisiana had specific responsibility for maintaining their safety over and above the Federal involvement. But the best-case plans I have heard for the restructuring would not have had it completed until long after 2005, so we'd have watched several billion dollars of Federal construction money swept away by Katrina. Maybe, if you insist on Federal primary involvement, if a prior President had initiated such a project New Orleans would have been protected. . .
Except in 1953, when half the country flooded. The Dutch remember this as the worst event of the 20th century (with good cause!)
Okay, maybe not a hurricane, but "hurricane-force winds" counts for something.