Home > Archive > Cobol > September 2005 > OT: Katrina's Wrath
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT: Katrina's Wrath
|
|
|
| I know this is off topic, but I think this group is compassionate
enough to excuse it this one time.
I just want to extend thoughts and prayers to everyone along the Gulf
coast who has been affected by this catastrophe.
Being a resident of South Florida and having lived through two direct
htis from category 2 hurricanes last year, sustaining (what I
considered at the time to be) a moderate amount of damage, I cannot
begin to fathom the impact of Katrina on people's lives in the affected
areas. The outpouring of support from around the country for South
Florida last year was termendous. And, in the spirit of giving back any
helping out, I have already made the monetary contributions that are
appropriate in these circumstances. I only wish there was more we could
do.
My sincere hopes that all members of this group find themselves, their
loved ones and friends safe and well today. If that is the case, please
take a moment to think about those who are not so fortunate right now.
Thanks,
Chris
| |
| SkippyPB 2005-08-31, 6:55 pm |
| On 31 Aug 2005 07:07:40 -0700, "Chris" <ctaliercio@yahoo.com>
enlightened us:
>I know this is off topic, but I think this group is compassionate
>enough to excuse it this one time.
>
>I just want to extend thoughts and prayers to everyone along the Gulf
>coast who has been affected by this catastrophe.
>
>Being a resident of South Florida and having lived through two direct
>htis from category 2 hurricanes last year, sustaining (what I
>considered at the time to be) a moderate amount of damage, I cannot
>begin to fathom the impact of Katrina on people's lives in the affected
>areas. The outpouring of support from around the country for South
>Florida last year was termendous. And, in the spirit of giving back any
>helping out, I have already made the monetary contributions that are
>appropriate in these circumstances. I only wish there was more we could
>do.
>
>My sincere hopes that all members of this group find themselves, their
>loved ones and friends safe and well today. If that is the case, please
>take a moment to think about those who are not so fortunate right now.
>
>
>Thanks,
>Chris
Having once lived in New Orleans for 2.5 years and still having
friends there about whom I know nothing about at this time, I echo
your sentiments.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name."
-- Steven Wright
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
|
| Chris wrote:
> I know this is off topic, but I think this group is compassionate
> enough to excuse it this one time.
>
> I just want to extend thoughts and prayers to everyone along the Gulf
> coast who has been affected by this catastrophe.
>
> Being a resident of South Florida and having lived through two direct
> htis from category 2 hurricanes last year, sustaining (what I
> considered at the time to be) a moderate amount of damage, I cannot
> begin to fathom the impact of Katrina on people's lives in the affected
> areas. The outpouring of support from around the country for South
> Florida last year was termendous. And, in the spirit of giving back any
> helping out, I have already made the monetary contributions that are
> appropriate in these circumstances. I only wish there was more we could
> do.
>
> My sincere hopes that all members of this group find themselves, their
> loved ones and friends safe and well today. If that is the case, please
> take a moment to think about those who are not so fortunate right now.
I second that. This is something on a scale that, to me, is unimaginable.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Lueko Willms 2005-09-01, 7:55 am |
| .. On 31.08.05
wrote ctaliercio@yahoo.com (Chris)
on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in 1125497260.325686.101660@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
about OT: Katrina's Wrath
c> I know this is off topic, but I think this group is compassionate
c> enough to excuse it this one time.
c>
c> I just want to extend thoughts and prayers to everyone along the Gulf
c> coast who has been affected by this catastrophe.
Where I like to append a message which I have just sent to a
mailing list:
--------- schnipp -----------------------------------------
.. On 31.08.05
wrote ffeldman@bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
on /ALIST/MARXMAIL
in 000201c5ae34$de53e660$6401a8c0@fredpc
about [Marxism] NY Times edit on New Orleans disaster
I am really outraged how the richest nation on earth shows itself
incapable of protecting their people from upcoming natural desasters.
There was talk for several days that hurricane Katrine might hit
New Orleans, and there were no real preparations for an evacuation and
of reinforcing the levees protecting the city from the surrounding,
higher waters.
Please go back to the Marxmail archives of September 2004 and find
out that New Orlean's mayor was aware of the dangers to the city
resulting from a major hurricane. And that he said the the 100'000
poor of New Orleans would have no chance to get out of harm's way
because they own no car.
Did he organize to set up plans to get the people evacuate
nevertheless? Did he organize plans to reinforce the levees and
organize their protection against a hit by a hurricane. Nope. Nothing
happened.
When the evacuation was finally ordered shortly before landfall of
Katrina a few days ago, it was as announced a year before: everybody
is left by themselves, no common effort to save everybody.
FF> I agree with Jose that this should be viewed as primarily a social
FF> catastrophe, caused by the effects of a decaying social system on
FF> governmental corruption and indifference, infrastructure, race
FF> relations, and human solidarity in all its forms.
Only now, when "unrest is threatening" among the 20'000 or more
people held in New Orlean's Super Dome, without water, electricity
i.e. no light and no air conditioning in this rooms without windows,
without functioning toilets, only now they start talking about
organizing a bus cavalcade to bring those people to the stadium in
Houston, Texas. Only now they are talking about evacuating the cities
hospitals.
Why didn't they do it right away? Why wait so long?
FF> We know from Cuban experience that real disasters can happen and the
FF> resulting damage can be contained in advance, during, and afterwards
FF> by the power of organized human solidarity at every level.
Before the disastrous hurrican Ivan hit western Cuba in September
2004, 1.5 or even 1.9 million people have been brought out of harms
way, in an organized fashion, without leaving anybody behind.
When poor Cuba can do it, why not the rich USA? They could have
organized a dozen or more planes, hundreds of buses, and what have
you, to organize a complete evacuation of the city.
There are no material reasons not to save peoples lives, only the
incapacity of the capitalist society which is well able to bring shock
and awe and real destruction in all parts of the globe, conquer
countries, organize hundreds of thousands of soldiers to terrorize
people all around the world, but even then they can't create
conditions where human beings can live in peace and progress.
From the standpoint of humanity, saving human lives is the first
priority, capitalism is incapable.
Think also of those who managed to get out of New Orleans and other
areas hit by Katrina. They might be about a million people who are now
wandering around in the USA, who have lost their jobs, their homes,
and will soon not even be possible to use their credit cards to pay
hotel accomodation or whatever, since the banks at home are shut down,
they are flooded and have no electricity and the bank workers
themselves are among the refugees.
A real social crisis is looming for the USA.
Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.mlwerke.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --
"Nach meiner Ansicht besitzt die Presse _das_ _Recht_,
Schriftsteller, Politiker, Komödianten und andere öffentliche
Charaktere zu _beleidigen_. Achtete ich [so einen Angriff gegen mich]
einer Notiz wert, so galt mir in solchen Fällen der Wahlspruch: à
corsaire, corsaire et demi [auf einen Schelmen anderthalben]."
- Karl Marx 17.11.1860 (Herr Vogt, Kapitel XI)
------------------ schnapp --------------------------------
The homepage of the mailing list for which this text was written is
at <http://www.marxmail.org>. The archives are only some clicks away
from there.
Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --
Er urteilt nach dem jedesmaligen Aggregatzustand seiner Empfindungen. -G.C.Lichtenberg
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-09-01, 6:55 pm |
|
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11he7k24dfjdi01@news.supernews.com...
> As for the property destruction and the rebuilding, that's covered -
> mostly - by insurance and has already been paid for in advance.
That may be true for businesses and commercial buildings, but I suspect it's
by no means "mostly" for homeowners, and certainly isn't "mostly" for the
less-affluent residents of New Orleans.
Flood insurance in flood-prone areas is expensive to begin with; flood
insurance in areas below sea level, if available at all, is even more
expensive. Homeowner's insurance does not cover *flooding* in the form of
*rising* water, even if it does cover direct *rain and storm damage*, so
insurance against flooding is always extra.
I suspect the prices, and the deductibles, are comparable to that for
earthquake insurance in Southern California, and even if the price is
reasonable the deductibles are not, which is why so few opt for it. For
example, if I've remembered right: if you're a homeowner, have opted for
earthquake insurance, and have your house utterly destroyed in an
earthquake, *you* have to come up with the *first* 10% of the rebuilding
costs. If you've lost your house, you've lost the most likely collateral
for a loan, and if you don't have any other collateral the earthquake
insurance does you no good at all.
-Chuck Stevens
| |
|
| Lueko Willms wrote:
>
> Please go back to the Marxmail archives of September 2004 and find
> out that New Orlean's mayor was aware of the dangers to the city
> resulting from a major hurricane. And that he said the the 100'000
> poor of New Orleans would have no chance to get out of harm's way
> because they own no car.
>
> Did he organize to set up plans to get the people evacuate
> nevertheless? Did he organize plans to reinforce the levees and
> organize their protection against a hit by a hurricane. Nope. Nothing
> happened.
>
> When the evacuation was finally ordered shortly before landfall of
> Katrina a few days ago, it was as announced a year before: everybody
> is left by themselves, no common effort to save everybody.
Sadly, many Americans don't see the need for something until a tragedy
occurs. Look at our lackluster response to Islamic terrorism from 1993
- 10 Sep 2001. Something bad happens, it finally gets attention and
public support.
> Before the disastrous hurrican Ivan hit western Cuba in September
> 2004, 1.5 or even 1.9 million people have been brought out of harms
> way, in an organized fashion, without leaving anybody behind.
>
> When poor Cuba can do it, why not the rich USA? They could have
> organized a dozen or more planes, hundreds of buses, and what have
> you, to organize a complete evacuation of the city.
That's the thing about freedom - you have the freedom to make an unwise
choice. I'd much prefer it that way to the way Cuba is run. :) It's
not the *government's* responsibility to get people out - the truly
responsible thing would be to not live below sea level to begin with!
In this country, you are responsible for you (and your family) - no
matter how many socialistic programs are enacted (or attempted), the
bottom line is that each person has the power to choose what they do,
where they go, where they live.
Think about the mayor's year-old warning another way - if people heard
that warning a year ago, and knew they would not be able to get out the
way things were, why did *they* (the people) not do anything?
> There are no material reasons not to save peoples lives, only the
> incapacity of the capitalist society which is well able to bring shock
> and awe and real destruction in all parts of the globe, conquer
> countries, organize hundreds of thousands of soldiers to terrorize
> people all around the world, but even then they can't create
> conditions where human beings can live in peace and progress.
Government in this country has a limited function. Providing for the
defense of the land is probably the biggest one. Name for me one other
country that has given more to this Earth than the USA has over the past
100 years. There's not one! Just because people don't heed warnings
(which, freedom being what it is, they can make that choice)doesn't mean
that it's still not the best place for peace and progress.
> From the standpoint of humanity, saving human lives is the first
> priority, capitalism is incapable.
>
> Think also of those who managed to get out of New Orleans and other
> areas hit by Katrina. They might be about a million people who are now
> wandering around in the USA, who have lost their jobs, their homes,
> and will soon not even be possible to use their credit cards to pay
> hotel accomodation or whatever, since the banks at home are shut down,
> they are flooded and have no electricity and the bank workers
> themselves are among the refugees.
And that's where the extreme generosity of the American people kicks in.
Our private charitable contributions for the tsunami last year far
outpaced what our government gave - as it should. Taxes are for running
the government; charity is for helping folks in need.
> A real social crisis is looming for the USA.
I don't know that I'd call it a social crisis. Sure, there's a crisis
dealing with people (and the looters, apart from food/water/a few
clothes, need to be shot where they are). But the bigger issues are
policy-related, specifically energy and public safety. And, they'll be
addressed. That's another great thing about freedom - we can address
problems and learn from the bad things that happen.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Donald Tees 2005-09-01, 6:55 pm |
| HeyBub wrote:
> Lueko Willms wrote:
>
>
> ============
> The points you raise are good ones, but the solutions you propose could only
> occur in a monarchy.
>
> It's political - or democracy rules.
>
> One starts with the premise that there is SOME limit to the amount of taxes
> the public will stand. How this tax money is divided is mostly at the whim
> of who can make the most noise, not economic or humane considerations.
>
> In the case of New Orleans, to upgrade the dike system from a fast Cat-3
> hurricane capability to a slow-moving Cat-5 storm would take many billions
> of dollars and decades of work. Let's assume $10 billion.
>
> If New Orleans ends up with 10,000 dead that's $1 million to save one life.
>
> To test every black baby for sickle-cell anemia costs $69 per life saved.
> To innoculate a high-risk person against influenza costs $570 per life
> saved.
> To vaccinate a person over 65 agains pneumonia costs $2000 per life saved.
> To Chlorinate drinking water costs $3100 per life saved.
> To screen blood donors for HIV costs $14,000 per life saved.
> To erect flashing lights and gates at rail crossings costs $45,000 per life
> saved.*
>
> I could go on and on.
>
> Any sane person, assuming less than unlimited money, would surely opt for
> more bang for the buck than levy enhancement.
>
> As for the property destruction and the rebuilding, that's covered -
> mostly - by insurance and has already been paid for in advance.
>
How about the cost of securing the US oil supply (per gallon) in the
United States, compared to securing the oil supply (per gallon) in Iraq?
$10 billion looks like a pretty cheap investment to me, compared to the
cost of invading a country.
Donald
| |
| Peter Lacey 2005-09-01, 6:55 pm |
| HeyBub wrote:
>
> ============
> The points you raise are good ones, but the solutions you propose could only
> occur in a monarchy.
>
Or in any country whose people have their heads screwed on properly.
> It's political - or democracy rules.
>
Judging by your notes, it's "money rules".
> One starts with the premise that there is SOME limit to the amount of taxes
> the public will stand. How this tax money is divided is mostly at the whim
> of who can make the most noise, not economic or humane considerations.
One starts with the premise that money spent now can save double,
triple, multiple or squared - the amount in the future.
In Winnipeg (a city of 500,000 at the time) there was a near-disastrous
flood in 1950. About half of the city was under water and the bills and
costs amounted to about $150 milion. After the flood was over and the
city more or less back to normal, the Premier at the time decided to
build a floodway around the city at a cost of (I think) about $40
million. A ridiculous waste of money said the critics - this "Duff's
ditch" (the Premier's name was Duff Roblin) will never divert enough
floodwater to make itself worth-while. All the same sort of arguments
that you propose were brought into play. Well the floodway was built,
and since then there have been 16 springs when there was significant
flooding taken care of, culminating in 1997 when a 150-year flood
occurred, which the floodway JUST handled (it was touch-and-go for a
while, another foot or so of water would have overwhelmed it). It's
calculated that the diverted floods have saved several BILLIONS of
dollars of damage to the city - indeed, there's a good chance that the
flood of 1997 would have gone a fair way to wiping the city out were it
not for the floodway.
The floodway was built strictly with public money. You won't find
anybody, anywhere, that would now even hint it was wasted or an
ineffective expenditure.
>
> In the case of New Orleans, to upgrade the dike system from a fast Cat-3
> hurricane capability to a slow-moving Cat-5 storm would take many billions
> of dollars and decades of work. Let's assume $10 billion.
In the case of New Orleans, it should have been apparent 30 years ago
that this disaster was going to happen sooner or later. If anybody had
had the vision and the courage necessary, dikes 1000' wide and 100' high
could have been built - at a large cost for the time, to be sure, but
not a patch on what the damage is costing now. That person would now be
looked upon as a far-seeing hero, just as Duff Roblin is today.
Bear in mind, too, that this will happen AGAIN and again. Maybe next
year, maybe in a century - but it will happen.
>
>
> Any sane person, assuming less than unlimited money, would surely opt for
> more bang for the buck than levy enhancement.
Such as what, in this case?
Any sane person would have forbidden the city growing to its present
size below sea level, and would have made sure that the levees in
existence would adequately protect against at least a 100-year event.
>
> As for the property destruction and the rebuilding, that's covered -
> mostly - by insurance and has already been paid for in advance.
Yeah, right. I'd say it will be at least a decade before the city gets
back to its present state. And Insurance won't cover more than a
fraction of it. Most of the people that are now being evacuated won't
have anything to come back to, nor the money to live on until they can
find somewhere to sleep, or indeed be able to afford to rebuild.
I don't have too much reason to be smug - after all, I live on a flood
plain and if somebody dynamited the floodway control structures during
the spring I'd be swept away too - but I'd rather overspend now and know
that the best possible precautions have been taken for the most
reasonably extreme situation (If there's to be a 2,000 year flood I
don't think any preparation would be adequate). The floodway is being
enhanced to cope with a 700-year flood: and judging by the precipitation
we've had this spring I hope it'll be ready in time.
PL
| |
| HeyBub 2005-09-01, 6:55 pm |
| Chuck Stevens wrote:
> "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11he7k24dfjdi01@news.supernews.com...
>
>
> That may be true for businesses and commercial buildings, but I
> suspect it's by no means "mostly" for homeowners, and certainly isn't
> "mostly" for the less-affluent residents of New Orleans.
Those without insurance are, by definition, "self insured." The alternative
is mandatory home owner's insurance, kind of like Social Security is
mandatory retirement insurance. Would we accept imposed insurance? I don't
know.
>
> Flood insurance in flood-prone areas is expensive to begin with; flood
> insurance in areas below sea level, if available at all, is even more
> expensive. Homeowner's insurance does not cover *flooding* in the
> form of *rising* water, even if it does cover direct *rain and storm
> damage*, so insurance against flooding is always extra.
Nah, flood insurance is cheap (it's government subsidized). And a flood in
New Orleans is EXTREMELY rare - from an actuarial point of view.
>
> I suspect the prices, and the deductibles, are comparable to that for
> earthquake insurance in Southern California, and even if the price is
> reasonable the deductibles are not, which is why so few opt for it.
Or so few opt for it because earthquakes are not common.
> For example, if I've remembered right: if you're a homeowner, have
> opted for earthquake insurance, and have your house utterly destroyed
> in an earthquake, *you* have to come up with the *first* 10% of the
> rebuilding costs. If you've lost your house, you've lost the most
> likely collateral for a loan, and if you don't have any other
> collateral the earthquake insurance does you no good at all.
Earthquakes in California are less rare than floods in New Orleans. As for
collateral, you still have the slab and the property. You might not have
either in a California clime (I'm thinking mud slides).
As a side observation: Watch for it, New Orleans will be rebuilt a fraction
of its original size. They will eliminate the "poor" areas from the
rebuilding by expanding the lake, or some such. An efficient and defensible
way to effectively evict the mopes and squints.
| |
| Peter Lacey 2005-09-01, 9:55 pm |
| HeyBub wrote:
>
> Those without insurance are, by definition, "self insured." The alternative
> is mandatory home owner's insurance, kind of like Social Security is
> mandatory retirement insurance. Would we accept imposed insurance? I don't
> know.
>
>
> Nah, flood insurance is cheap (it's government subsidized). And a flood in
> New Orleans is EXTREMELY rare - from an actuarial point of view.
>
>
> Or so few opt for it because earthquakes are not common.
>
> Earthquakes in California are less rare than floods in New Orleans. As for
> collateral, you still have the slab and the property. You might not have
> either in a California clime (I'm thinking mud slides).
>
> As a side observation: Watch for it, New Orleans will be rebuilt a fraction
> of its original size. They will eliminate the "poor" areas from the
> rebuilding by expanding the lake, or some such. An efficient and defensible
> way to effectively evict the mopes and squints.
If this post is meant to be taken seriously - if it truly reflects your
views - it's reprehensible.
PL
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2005-09-02, 3:55 am |
| In article <11heueaferfroaa@news.supernews.com>,
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
>
> Nah, flood insurance is cheap (it's government subsidized). And a flood in
> New Orleans is EXTREMELY rare - from an actuarial point of view.
Not actually all that rare. It happens ever year -- but the concrete
walls hold the flood out MOST years. The flood happens, but the damage
is null, or just a higher water mark on the levy. Upstream, in the
unprotected Mississippi river flood zone, many homes are destroyed
annually.
This would be a good time to point out that for the last 36 years people
(outside of N.O.) have been warning of the damage a hurricane could do
to the city. While at least 51% of the voting residents of N.O. have
chosen to spend their money on things other than levy improvement for
each of the last 36 years.
Daniel cites a number of 10 billion to fix the levy system. I'm not
sure where it comes from, but had they been working on it since the last
big hit in 1969, it would have been easily done with little impact on
the collective wallet of such a large, commerce oriented, port city.
Only 250 million/year in inflation adjusted dollars -- or half the cost
of flood insurance for each resident. Far less if they approached it
from a excise tax point of view.
I would almost never wish that destruction upon almost anyone...it is
quite terrible. But didn't someone (DD?) recently quote H.L.M.? "Give
the people what they vote for -- they almost certainly deserve it?"
| |
| Lueko Willms 2005-09-02, 3:55 am |
| .. On 01.09.05
wrote lxi0007@netscape.net (LX-i)
on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in 5e059$431736b7$45491c57$19401@KNOLOGY.NET
about Re: OT: Katrina's Wrath
LW>> When poor Cuba can do it, why not the rich USA? They could
LW>> have organized a dozen or more planes, hundreds of buses, and
LW>> what have you, to organize a complete evacuation of the city.
l> That's the thing about freedom - you have the freedom to make an
l> unwise choice. I'd much prefer it that way to the way Cuba is run.
l> :) It's not the *government's* responsibility to get people out - the
l> truly responsible thing would be to not live below sea level to begin
l> with! In this country, you are responsible for you (and your family) -
l> no matter how many socialistic programs are enacted (or attempted),
l> the bottom line is that each person has the power to choose what they
l> do, where they go, where they live.
l>
l> Think about the mayor's year-old warning another way - if people heard
l> that warning a year ago, and knew they would not be able to get out
l> the way things were, why did *they* (the people) not do anything?
[color=darkred]
l> Government in this country has a limited function. Providing for the
l> defense of the land is probably the biggest one. Name for me one
l> other country that has given more to this Earth than the USA has over
l> the past 100 years. There's not one! Just because people don't heed
l> warnings (which, freedom being what it is, they can make that
l> choice)doesn't mean that it's still not the best place for peace and
l> progress.
If I wouldn't have known your ideas, I would have thought that
somebody is trying to make a bad cynical joke to show how much the USA
is a failed state.
You can not seriously claim that the USA is a great state, bringing
racism, colonialism, wars, "shock and awe", i.e. terror, military
dicatorships, torture, and mass killings to the world, just to leave
each and every of its citizens helpless against the powers of nature.
The tens of thousands of people trapped in New Orleans did not get
out of the city, because they did not "heed warnings", but because the
COULD NOT MAKE THAT CHOICE either because they had not the means, i.e.
no car of their own, or because they were ill, handicapped, in a
nursing home or hospital, whatever.
You claim that being poor in the USA just means that you have to
die when the hurricane hits.
But people to organize collectivities, which means in today's world
states, to organize for the common tasks and problems. The state USA
has obviously failed before that challenge.
So when this is useless and failed, it should be replaced. I think
that the failure of the USA as a state as shown in the incapacity to
deal with the upcoming catastrophe Katrina, will be a watershed like
the 1972 earthquake in Nicaragua, where a few years later the US-
sponsored Somoza dictatorship ended, just after having bombed their
own people - and when I see the military on their threatening patrols
in New Orleans, I think that might come faster.
Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --
Wir wohnen in Göttingen in Scheiterhaufen, die mit Türen und Fenstern versehen sind. -G.C.Lichtenberg
| |
| Lueko Willms 2005-09-02, 7:55 am |
| .. Am 01.09.05
schrieb joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com (Joe Zitzelberger)
bei /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in joe_zitzelberger-2C4E36.23405101092005@ispnews.usenetserver.com
ueber Re: OT: Katrina's Wrath
JZ> This would be a good time to point out that for the last 36 years
JZ> people (outside of N.O.) have been warning of the damage a hurricane
JZ> could do to the city. While at least 51% of the voting residents of
JZ> N.O. have chosen to spend their money on things other than levy
JZ> improvement for each of the last 36 years.
For the conquest of Iraq and its oil resources, e.g., where not
only the money has been spent, but also a large part of Louisianas
National Guard is used to put the Iraqis down.
Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.mlwerke.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --
"Kein Land kann seine Probleme in dieser globalisierten Welt allein
auf sich gestellt lösen. Entweder wir retten uns alle zusammen oder
wir gehen zusammen unter. Heute mehr denn je gilt das Wort von José
Martí: Das Vaterland ist die ganze Menschheit."
- Fidel Castro, Caracas (Veneuzuela), 3. Februar 1999
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-09-02, 7:55 am |
|
"Lueko Willms" <l.willms@jpberlin.de> wrote in message
news:9d5MUDVeflB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de...
[snip]
> But people to organize collectivities, which means in today's world
> states, to organize for the common tasks and problems. The state USA
> has obviously failed before that challenge.
>
> So when this is useless and failed, it should be replaced. I think
> that the failure of the USA as a state as shown in the incapacity to
> deal with the upcoming catastrophe Katrina, [snip]
Mr Willms, you seem not to understand the
organization of the United States. The United States
is a union--a union more complete than under the
Articles of Confederation--a union with some of the
powers of nations--a union that appears as one nation
among many--but not more than a union. Article IV,
Section 4 (The Guarantee Clause), of the Constitution
of the United States, prohibits interference with state
responsibilities and provides a means by which a
state may request the assistance of the United States
to protect that state against domestic violence.
It is the responsibility of the individual states to deal
with natural disasters for both preparedness and
recovery. It is unconstitutional for the government of
the United States to interfere with those responsibilities.
I have no doubt there were failures related to Katrina,
but it was not a failure attributable to the United States.
In this regard, all is proceeding according to the plan
written in 1787, as ordered by the people and ratified
by the states.
| |
| Lueko Willms 2005-09-02, 7:55 am |
| .. Am 01.09.05
schrieb heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com (HeyBub)
bei /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in 11he7k24dfjdi01@news.supernews.com
ueber Re: OT: Katrina's Wrath
h> The points you raise are good ones, but the solutions you propose
h> could only occur in a monarchy.
No, think of Marie Antoinette's famous remark about people
demonstrating for bread in the streets: "If they don't have bread, why
don't they eat cake?".
It is possible in a society which cares for its people and which
makes protection of human life the top priority.
Even the New York Times got some clues:
--------- schnipp -----------------------------------------
The New York Times - Sep 2, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/02/o.../02krugman.html
A Can't-Do Government
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Before 9/11 the Federal Emergency Management Agency listed the three
most likely catastrophic disasters facing America: a terrorist attack
on New York, a major earthquake in San Francisco and a hurricane
strike on New Orleans. "The New Orleans hurricane scenario," The
Houston Chronicle wrote in December 2001, "may be the deadliest of
all." It described a potential catastrophe very much like the one now
happening.
So why were New Orleans and the nation so unprepared? After 9/11, hard
questions were deferred in the name of national unity, then buried
under a thick coat of whitewash. This time, we need accountability.
First question: Why have aid and security taken so long to arrive?
Katrina hit five days ago - and it was already clear by last Friday
that Katrina could do immense damage along the Gulf Coast. Yet the
response you'd expect from an advanced country never happened.
Thousands of Americans are dead or dying, not because they refused to
evacuate, but because they were too poor or too sick to get out
without help - and help wasn't provided. Many have yet to receive any
help at all.
There will and should be many questions about the response of state
and local governments; in particular, couldn't they have done more to
help the poor and sick escape? But the evidence points, above all, to
a stunning lack of both preparation and urgency in the federal
government's response.
Even military resources in the right place weren't ordered into
action. "On Wednesday," said an editorial in The Sun Herald in Biloxi,
Miss., "reporters listening to horrific stories of death and survival
at the Biloxi Junior High School shelter looked north across Irish
Hill Road and saw Air Force personnel playing basketball and
performing calisthenics. Playing basketball and performing
calisthenics!"
Maybe administration officials believed that the local National Guard
could keep order and deliver relief. But many members of the National
Guard and much of its equipment - including high-water vehicles - are
in Iraq. "The National Guard needs that equipment back home to support
the homeland security mission," a Louisiana Guard officer told
reporters several w s ago.
Second question: Why wasn't more preventive action taken? After 2003
the Army Corps of Engineers sharply slowed its flood-control work,
including work on sinking levees. "The corps," an Editor and Publisher
article says, citing a series of articles in The Times-Picayune in New
Orleans, "never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of
the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security - coming at the same
time as federal tax cuts - was the reason for the strain."
In 2002 the corps' chief resigned, reportedly under threat of being
fired, after he criticized the administration's proposed cuts in the
corps' budget, including flood-control spending.
Third question: Did the Bush administration destroy FEMA's
effectiveness? The administration has, by all accounts, treated the
emergency management agency like an unwanted stepchild, leading to a
mass exodus of experienced professionals.
Last year James Lee Witt, who won bipartisan praise for his leadership
of the agency during the Clinton years, said at a Congressional
hearing: "I am extremely concerned that the ability of our nation to
prepare for and respond to disasters has been sharply eroded. I hear
from emergency managers, local and state leaders, and first responders
nearly every day that the FEMA they knew and worked well with has now
disappeared."
I don't think this is a simple tale of incompetence. The reason the
military wasn't rushed in to help along the Gulf Coast is, I believe,
the same reason nothing was done to stop looting after the fall of
Baghdad. Flood control was neglected for the same reason our troops in
Iraq didn't get adequate armor.
At a fundamental level, I'd argue, our current leaders just aren't
serious about some of the essential functions of government. They like
waging war, but they don't like providing security, rescuing those in
need or spending on preventive measures. And they never, ever ask for
shared sacrifice.
Yesterday Mr. Bush made an utterly fantastic claim: that nobody
expected the breach of the levees. In fact, there had been repeated
warnings about exactly that risk.
So America, once famous for its can-do attitude, now has a can't-do
government that makes excuses instead of doing its job. And while it
makes those excuses, Americans are dying.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
*
------------------ schnapp --------------------------------
Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.mlwerke.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --
"Die Arbeit in weißer Haut kann sich nicht dort emanzipieren, wo sie
in schwarzer Haut gebrandmarkt wird." - Karl Marx 12.11.1866
| |
| Lueko Willms 2005-09-02, 7:55 am |
| .. Am 01.09.05
schrieb heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com (HeyBub)
bei /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in 11he7k24dfjdi01@news.supernews.com
ueber Re: OT: Katrina's Wrath
h> In the case of New Orleans, to upgrade the dike system from a fast
h> Cat-3 hurricane capability to a slow-moving Cat-5 storm would take
h> many billions of dollars and decades of work. Let's assume $10
h> billion.
It is the simply maintenance which has been negelected. Read this
article from June 2004, more than a year ago, from the New Orleans
local newspaper:
--------- schnipp -----------------------------------------
Copyright 2004 The Times-Picayune Publishing Company
Times-Picayune (New Orleans)
June 8, 2004 Tuesday
SECTION: NATIONAL; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1073 words
HEADLINE: Shifting federal budget erodes protection from levees;
Because of cuts, hurricane risk grows
BYLINE: By Sheila Grissett, East Jefferson bureau
BODY:
For the first time in 37 years, federal budget cuts have all but
stopped major work on the New Orleans area's east bank hurricane
levees, a complex network of concrete walls, metal gates and giant
earthen berms that won't be finished for at least another decade.
"I guess people look around and think there's a complete system in
place, that we're just out here trying to put icing on the cake,"
said Mervin Morehiser, who manages the "Lake Pontchartrain and
vicinity" levee project for the Army Corps of Engineers. "And we
aren't saying that the sky is falling, but people should know that
this is a work in progress, and there's more important work yet to
do before there is a complete system in place."
In reality, levee building is a long-term undertaking. Section by
section, earth is piled into walls as high as 20 feet to protect
land on the east bank of the Mississippi River from water that a
slow-moving Category 3 hurricane could shove out of Lake
Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne. But the levees gradually settle into
southeast Louisiana's mucky subsoil, and every few years, the corps
comes back, section by section, to pile on more dirt in what
insiders call a "lift."
"It has always been part of our long-range plan to raise each
section of the levee four or even five times," said Al Naomi, the
corps' senior project manager. "After that, we think the levee might
have stabilized and not need further raisings."
Time for next lift
It's time now for the next lifts in a number of places that have
sunk 2 to 4 feet from their design elevations. These include in
Kenner west of the Pontchartrain Center, Metairie between Causeway
Boulevard and Clearview Parkway, Norco and St. Rose in St. Charles
Parish, the Bayou Sauvage area of eastern New Orleans, and remote
marshland areas of eastern St. Bernard Parish.
The subsidence is expected.
What's new, said Morehiser and Naomi, is that the agency has run out
of money for the next round of lifts. Naomi said this is the first
time a lack of money has stopped major corps work on the levees
since the project began in 1967.
"I can't tell you exactly what that could mean this hurricane season
if we get a major storm," Naomi said. "It would depend on the path
and speed of the storm, the angle that it hits us.
"But I can tell you that we would be better off if the levees were
raised, . . . and I think it's important and only fair that those
people who live behind the levee know the status of these projects."
Levees on the east bank of New Orleans, as well as some in eastern
St. Bernard Parish, are among the area's oldest and have had several
lifts. Corps engineers said the next lift might be the last they
need.
But the levees on the east bank of St. Charles and Jefferson
parishes are much younger, and most stretches have had only one or
two lifts.
"This project isn't expected to end for another 13 to 15 years,"
Morehiser said. "They aren't really finished levees at this point.
We don't even turn them over to their local sponsors until we
consider them stable, which is years from now."
The levees are designed to handle a storm surge of 11 feet, and
every additional foot of levee above that is intended to contain
waves that otherwise would top the levee. The height of individual
levee segments vary.
"When levees are below grade, as ours are in many spots right now,
they're more vulnerable to waves pouring over them and degrading
them," Naomi said. "We're not below storm-surge elevation yet, but
we will be if we stop raising our levees as they subside."
Bush budget falls short
The Bush administration's proposed fiscal 2005 budget includes only
$3.9 million for the east bank hurricane project. Congress likely
will increase that amount, although last year it bumped up the
administration's $3 million proposal only to $5.5 million.
"I needed $11 million this year, and I got $5.5 million," Naomi
said. "I need $22.5 million next year to do everything that needs
doing, and the first $4.5 million of that will go to pay four
contractors who couldn't get paid this year."
Naomi said the corps already owes four contractors more than $2
million for hurricane protection work they've done this year without
pay, and he expects the figure to climb to about $4.5 million by
Sept. 30, the end of the federal fiscal year.
The challenge now, said emergency management chiefs Walter Maestri
in Jefferson Parish and Terry Tullier in New Orleans, is for
southeast Louisiana somehow to persuade those who control federal
spending that protection from major storms and flooding are matters
of homeland security.
"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," Maestri said. "Nobody locally is happy
that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we
can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."
Tullier said, "There is no magic bullet or single key for us. It
takes all the keys that we have, and our system of protection is
only as strong as its weakest link.
"For us, this levee is part and parcel of homeland security because
it helps protect us 365 days a year."
Weak links elsewhere
Levee-raising is only part of the flood-related work that has
stopped since the federal government began reducing Corps of
Engineers appropriations in 2001, as more money was diverted to
homeland security, the fight against terrorism and the war in Iraq.
Naomi said the local corps district has no money to close gaps in
the hurricane levee on St. Charles Parish's east bank. That levee is
designed to protect St. Rose, Destrehan, New Sarpy and Norco, as
well as keep floodwater from closing Airline Drive, a major
evacuation route.
Nor does the corps have money to floodproof the Robert E. Lee Bridge
over the London Canal in New Orleans, nor to build the concrete
walls and gates to protect pump stations Nos. 3 and 7 from storm
surges on the New Orleans lakefront.
All of these projects, along with periodic levee lifts, are part of
the corps' long-term $745 million hurricane protection project.
"The big danger here is that if we don't get the money to award
these contracts that are ready to go, the backlog will only increase
as the levees continue to settle," Naomi said. "We'll end up so far
behind that we can't catch up. And the further behind we get, the
more critical the safety of the city becomes."
------------------ schnapp --------------------------------
Note this figure of 745 Million USD instead of the assumed 10'000
million USD.
Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.mlwerke.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --
"Der einzige Weg, Armut zu überwinden, ist den Armen die Macht zu geben"
- Hugo Chavez, Präsident von Venezuela
| |
|
| Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
> Daniel cites a number of 10 billion to fix the levy system.
Just for clarification - that was HeyBub, not me. I haven't researched
it, so I can't throw numbers around like that. :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2005-09-02, 7:55 am |
| In article <9d5Ni4g9flB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de>,
l.willms@jpberlin.de (Lueko Willms) wrote:
> . Am 01.09.05
> schrieb joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com (Joe Zitzelberger)
> bei /COMP/LANG/COBOL
> in joe_zitzelberger-2C4E36.23405101092005@ispnews.usenetserver.com
> ueber Re: OT: Katrina's Wrath
>
> JZ> This would be a good time to point out that for the last 36 years
> JZ> people (outside of N.O.) have been warning of the damage a hurricane
> JZ> could do to the city. While at least 51% of the voting residents of
> JZ> N.O. have chosen to spend their money on things other than levy
> JZ> improvement for each of the last 36 years.
>
> For the conquest of Iraq and its oil resources, e.g., where not
> only the money has been spent, but also a large part of Louisianas
> National Guard is used to put the Iraqis down.
I was unaware that the local tax base of New Orleans was funding our
imperialist aggression in the middle east.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-09-02, 7:55 am |
| In article <9d5OYUVuflB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de>,
Lueko Willms <l.willms@jpberlin.de> wrote:
[snip]
> Note this figure of 745 Million USD instead of the assumed 10'000
>million USD.
From my observations I've concluded that one thing Americans have
difficulty doing is preparing for the future... as a nation we seem to
have trouble 'seeing something coming'.
These observations have also lead me to conclude that once something
actually hits... the responses are, once they get rolling, truly
magnificent in their effectiveness; the ship-building industry during the
Second World War is a prime example of this.
As for 'spend a dime now to save a buck later'... I recall, years ago,
newspaper articles about how one of the bridges to Manhattan - the
Williamsburg? - was experiencing structrual degradation due to a lack of
preventitive maintenance; because the budget could not be found to give it
a regular US$50,000 paint-job chunks of the bridge began falling off and
US$500,000 was needed for repairs.
I mentioned this to a fellow I knew who was raised in New York and
bemoaned the short-sightedness of it all; he shook his head wearily and
said 'Knowing what I do about that city it just might be easier to get
US$500,000 for emergency repairs than it is to get US$50,000 for something
unglamorous like painting.'
For whatever the reasons... people are now in pain and danger. Let's do
something about that, *fast*.
DD
| |
| Lueko Willms 2005-09-02, 6:55 pm |
| .. Am 02.09.05
schrieb ricksmith@mfi.net (Rick Smith)
bei /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in 11hg899j6mvlaca@corp.supernews.com
ueber Re: OT: Katrina's Wrath
RS> Mr Willms, you seem not to understand the
RS> organization of the United States.
I do understand it quite well.
RS> Article IV, Section 4 (The Guarantee Clause), of the
RS> Constitution of the United States, prohibits interference with
RS> state responsibilities and provides a means by which a
RS> state may request the assistance of the United States
RS> to protect that state against domestic violence.
You seem not to know about important institutions of the USA like
the FEMA - "Federal Emergency Management Authority".
Or you agree that with its incorporation into the "Home Security
Office", it got more and more degraded and dismantled.
RS> It is the responsibility of the individual states to deal
RS> with natural disasters for both preparedness and
RS> recovery. It is unconstitutional for the government of
RS> the United States to interfere with those responsibilities.
Is the US "Home Security Office" unconstitutional?
RS>
RS> I have no doubt there were failures related to Katrina,
RS> but it was not a failure attributable to the United States.
Well it was.
Or do you want to suggest that the USA is a failed state, not so
much different from Haiti when it comes to cope with Hurricanes?
If it doesn't work, so it needs to be replaced.
If the constitution prevents human life to be preserved and
protected, it needs to be changed.
Lüko Willms http://www.mlwerke.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --
"Die Arbeit in weißer Haut kann sich nicht dort emanzipieren, wo sie
in schwarzer Haut gebrandmarkt wird." - Karl Marx 12.11.1866
| |
|
| All:
How truly  it is, that a simple post to offer thoughts and prayers
to hundreds of thousands of displaced and suffering people has
degenerated into political finger pointing. I think many people who
posted here have missed the point.
Forget nationality and politics for a minute here. Put all that aside.
These are PEOPLE first and foremost. Their plight is no different than
that of other recent catastrophe victims, no matter their global
location; from the tsunami in Asia, to mudslides in Columbia, to floods
in China. This is a HUMAN tragedy playing out before the eyes of the
world - it shouldn't be made to be a political travesty as well.
Sure - there is a lot of blame to go around:
- Citizens could have, should have been better prepared.
- The levees could have, should have been funded and repaired.
- The city of New Orleans could have been better prepared for an event
of this magnitude.
- The state of Louisiane could have, should have been better prepared.
- FEMA could have, should have been faster and more effective in their
response.
But - guess what?
NONE OF THAT MATTERS NOW
Its not important how we got to this point in time. Hopefully history
truly will be the best teacher and future generations will learn from
our mistakes. But right now, that should not be the focus here. It
shouldn't be politics and idealism. You have fellow human beings from
all different walks of life that are in grave danger and in serious
need of your compassion and support.
Again, I'd like to urge everyone to take a moment and reflect.
It doesn't matter why or where this tragedy occured - these folks need
our help, and need it badly. PLEASE offer your thoughts, prayers, and
whatever contribution you can afford to assist your fellow man.
Chris
-------------
As a sidebar to Mr Wllms:
Your COBOL knowledge aside (and respected), you need to come down out
of whatever cloud of superiority you're living in with regards to the
United States. You said:
> You can not seriously claim that the USA is a great state, bringing
> racism, colonialism, wars, "shock and awe", i.e. terror, military
> dicatorships, torture, and mass killings to the world, just to leave
> each and every of its citizens helpless against the powers of nature.
Are you serious? It's so easy to play this game ... what has Germany
offered the world in the last hundred year besides beer?
Starting world wars; killing 6 million innocent people, in some of the
most inhumane methods possible, simply because of their religious
beliefs; oh, and lest we forget, some fancy automobiles.
Do we really need to get into these petty exchanges??
If you look hard enough, you can find items in EVERY country's past and
present to paint them in a very negative light.
Let me ask you something Mr. Willms - for all your criticism of the US,
who is the first country Germany will call when a overwhelming natural
disaster comes knocking at your door some day?
| |
| Lueko Willms 2005-09-02, 6:55 pm |
| .. On 02.09.05
wrote joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com (Joe Zitzelberger)
on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in joe_zitzelberger-BD0BE6.07513702092005@ispnews.usenetserver.com
about Re: OT: Katrina's Wrath
[color=darkred]
JZ> I was unaware that the local tax base of New Orleans was funding our
JZ> imperialist aggression in the middle east.
The allocation of the federal budget is not done pondering if the
taxes coming out of New York pay for the military, and the taxes from
which community would be used to fund the operation of the White House
and which community is to pay for the Congress.
But the fact is that a lot of money has been allocated for the war
against Iraq and other countries, while the budget for the maintenance
of the levees protecting New Orleans has been cut. See the article
from the Times-Picayune which I posted in another message.
Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --
Belehrung findet man öfter in der Welt als Trost. -G.C.Lichtenberg
| |
| SkippyPB 2005-09-02, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:59:45 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com>
enlightened us:
>Chuck Stevens wrote:
>
>Those without insurance are, by definition, "self insured." The alternative
>is mandatory home owner's insurance, kind of like Social Security is
>mandatory retirement insurance. Would we accept imposed insurance? I don't
>know.
>
>
>Nah, flood insurance is cheap (it's government subsidized). And a flood in
>New Orleans is EXTREMELY rare - from an actuarial point of view.
>
However, the danger has been known for a long time. In 2000, an
article that appeared in Risk & Insurance written by Lori Widmer
stated, "Louisiana's marshlands, the only buffer for hurricanes that
come out of the Gulf, are slipping into the ocean at an alarming rate.
New search indicates that just one major hurricane could put New
Orleans under water.
..
..
..
..... But not unlikely, according to Shea Penland, geologist and
professor at the University of New Orleans. "When we get the big
hurricane and there are 10,000 people dead, the city government's been
relocated to the north shore of Lake Ponchartrain, refugee camps have
been set up and there $10 billion plus in losses, what then?" he asks.
That was written 5 years ago! Read the whole thing at
http://www.findarticles.com/p/artic...i_68642805/pg_1
Floods are not extremely rare. In the above mentioned article it also
states, "Flood claims for just the Orleans parish region since 1978
have totaled well over $309 million. Nonresidential property claims in
that same area total more than $36 million, paid on 2,177 claims."
""Historically, we see more damage (from flooding) in the Jefferson,
Orleans, and St. Tammany parishes. The May 1995 flood was the number
one single largest event in the history of NFIP, and we paid more than
$500 million in losses in that area," says Herrera."
I used to live in Kenner, LA which is where the airport is. My
backyard would look like a marsh after a decent rainfall.
>
Homes in low to moderate risk areas qualify for the Preferred Risk
Flood Insurance Policy, which is $100 per year. The average flood
insurance policy runs from $300-$400 per year for $100,000 of
coverage. New Orleans would not be in the low to moderate area. It
would be in the high risk area. This is in addition to your normal
homeowners insurance.
For a $300,000, one story 2,000 sq. ft home in Los Angeles,
earthquake insurance would cost about $815.00 a year with a 15%
deductible. This is cheaper than flood insurance in New Orleans.
>Or so few opt for it because earthquakes are not common.
>
>
>Earthquakes in California are less rare than floods in New Orleans. As for
>collateral, you still have the slab and the property. You might not have
>either in a California clime (I'm thinking mud slides).
>
>As a side observation: Watch for it, New Orleans will be rebuilt a fraction
>of its original size. They will eliminate the "poor" areas from the
>rebuilding by expanding the lake, or some such. An efficient and defensible
>way to effectively evict the mopes and squints.
>
>
I suggest you know nothing about New Orleans or its culture. Nothing
will be eliminated and it will be back the way it was. Maybe the one
good thing is that the federal government will now pay attention to
requests from the state to help rebuild and enhance the levee system
that is in place around New Orleans. The federal budget for
maintaining the levees and pumps has been cut by the Bush
administration every year he's been in office since 2002.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name."
-- Steven Wright
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-09-02, 6:55 pm |
|
"Lueko Willms" <l.willms@jpberlin.de> wrote in message
news:9d5Pexn9flB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de...
[snip]
>
> RS> Mr Willms, you seem not to understand the
> RS> organization of the United States.
>
> I do understand it quite well.
Mr Willms, you may believe that you understand it
quite well; but I will stand by my original assessment.
> RS> Article IV, Section 4 (The Guarantee Clause), of the
> RS> Constitution of the United States, prohibits interference with
> RS> state responsibilities and provides a means by which a
> RS> state may request the assistance of the United States
> RS> to protect that state against domestic violence.
>
> You seem not to know about important institutions of the USA like
> the FEMA - "Federal Emergency Management Authority".
>
> Or you agree that with its incorporation into the "Home Security
> Office", it got more and more degraded and dismantled.
Incidently, that's "Agency" not "Authority" and
"Department of Homeland Security". Since I did
not mention either, your assumptions are
unwarranted.
> RS> It is the responsibility of the individual states to deal
> RS> with natural disasters for both preparedness and
> RS> recovery. It is unconstitutional for the government of
> RS> the United States to interfere with those responsibilities.
>
> Is the US "Home Security Office" unconstitutional?
Congress may create as many offices, agencies,
authorities, etc., by whatever names it chooses. The
question of constitutionality is related to the propiety
of laws. Some, including the ACLU, question the
propriety of some laws to be enforced by the
Department of Homeland Security; I tend to agree
with the ACLU, though I have not made my own
assessment of those laws.
> RS> I have no doubt there were failures related to Katrina,
> RS> but it was not a failure attributable to the United States.
>
> Well it was.
So you insist, despite evidence to the contrary.
> Or do you want to suggest that the USA is a failed state, not so
> much different from Haiti when it comes to cope with Hurricanes?
Having said that the failure was not attributable to the
United States, I find no need to respond further to this
line of absurd invective.
> If it doesn't work, so it needs to be replaced.
Or changed in the hope of preventing other failures in
the future. Whether and what shape that change, if any,
will take has yet to be determined.
> If the constitution prevents human life to be preserved and
> protected, it needs to be changed.
One stated goal of the US Constitution is "to secure
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity".
There are provisions in the US Constitution (and in
state constitutions) to protect human life from the
wrongful acts of government and others. Strictly
speaking, there is nothing in the US Constitution to
prevent the preservation of human life; but there is
a limit as to how far government can go to impose
its solutions upon the people.
| |
| Robert Broughton 2005-09-02, 6:55 pm |
| LX-i wrote:
> Government in this country has a limited function. Providing for the
> defense of the land is probably the biggest one.
And, in this case, the current administration has failed miserably.
--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Not all carcinogens are known to cause cancer in humans."
- Todd Benson, mailto:tbenson37@cox.net , Oct. 24, 2004
| |
| HeyBub 2005-09-02, 6:55 pm |
| SkippyPB wrote:
>
> I suggest you know nothing about New Orleans or its culture. Nothing
> will be eliminated and it will be back the way it was. Maybe the one
> good thing is that the federal government will now pay attention to
> requests from the state to help rebuild and enhance the levee system
> that is in place around New Orleans. The federal budget for
> maintaining the levees and pumps has been cut by the Bush
> administration every year he's been in office since 2002.
>
New Orleans may very well be back the way it was - but it can't stay that
way. New Orleans is SINKING (currently 3-4 feet per century). NO is
currently eight feet below sea level and twenty feet (in some places) below
the level of the river. It's a race between dikes to keep out the river and
the erosion of the wetlands between the city and the Gulf as to which will
cause the city's ultimate demise (Louisiana is currently losing about 25
square miles of coastal wetlands per year).
As for the budget, recent cuts - say those in the last twenty years - had no
effect on the current situation. First, the main levee break was at the 17th
street canal. That portion of the levee had been recently enhanced to the
latest design levels. No money was contemplated for the section of the levee
that actually failed.
Secondly, all proposals, studies, budgets, etc., for the levee system since
time immemorial contemplated a category 3 hurricane. Had all the money
dreamed of for the past fifty years been applied and all efforts been
expended from even the most visionary planners, it wouldn't have made a bit
of difference.
| |
| HeyBub 2005-09-02, 6:55 pm |
| Lueko Willms wrote:
> . Am 01.09.05
> schrieb heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com (HeyBub)
> bei /COMP/LANG/COBOL
> in 11he7k24dfjdi01@news.supernews.com
> ueber Re: OT: Katrina's Wrath
>
> h> The points you raise are good ones, but the solutions you propose
> h> could only occur in a monarchy.
>
> No, think of Marie Antoinette's famous remark about people
> demonstrating for bread in the streets: "If they don't have bread, why
> don't they eat cake?".
Fittingly, a French Connection.
Actually, it wasn't Marie, but the quote has an historical basis. France, at
that time, had a law on the books requiring baker's to sell all breads at
the same price. So the quote: "Let them eat brioche" meant "If there's no
plain bread for the poor to eat, they can eat fancy bread." So, in the
French view, if bakers have to sell bread at a loss to feed the poor, well,
so be it. The consequence? French bakers, who couldn't make a profit selling
cheap bread and had to sell expensive bread at a loss, produced very little
bread!
>
> It is possible in a society which cares for its people and which
> makes protection of human life the top priority.
>
> Even the New York Times got some clues:
No, Paul Krugman has no clue. In the view of many, he is a textbook example
of the "Head to the Lab" condition.
http://home.pacbell.net/weidners/jo...ugman_index.htm
or
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_...00506011007.asp
or
You might want to check Daniel Okrent's (NYT Ombudsman) final column in
which he said:
"Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing
and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but
leaves him open to substantive assaults. "
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...756C0A9639C8B63
>
>
> --------- schnipp -----------------------------------------
>
>
> The New York Times - Sep 2, 2005
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/02/o.../02krugman.html
>
> A Can't-Do Government
>
> By PAUL KRUGMAN
>
> Before 9/11 the Federal Emergency Management Agency listed the three
> most likely catastrophic disasters facing America: a terrorist attack
> on New York, a major earthquake in San Francisco and a hurricane
> strike on New Orleans. "The New Orleans hurricane scenario," The
> Houston Chronicle wrote in December 2001, "may be the deadliest of
> all." It described a potential catastrophe very much like the one now
> happening.
>
> So why were New Orleans and the nation so unprepared? After 9/11, hard
> questions were deferred in the name of national unity, then buried
> under a thick coat of whitewash. This time, we need accountability.
[...]
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-09-02, 6:55 pm |
|
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11hheu1m9m5er1c@news.supernews.com...
[snip]
> Secondly, all proposals, studies, budgets, etc., for the levee system
since
> time immemorial contemplated a category 3 hurricane. Had all the money
> dreamed of for the past fifty years been applied and all efforts been
> expended from even the most visionary planners, it wouldn't have made a
bit
> of difference.
One of the news items on CNN mentioned a study
that placed a price tag of $14B to upgrade the levee
system for a Cat 5 hurricane. I don't recall the mention
of a date; but my impression is that the study occurred
within the past year.
| |
|
| Lueko Willms wrote:
>
>
> l> Government in this country has a limited function. Providing for the
> l> defense of the land is probably the biggest one. Name for me one
> l> other country that has given more to this Earth than the USA has over
> l> the past 100 years. There's not one! Just because people don't heed
> l> warnings (which, freedom being what it is, they can make that
> l> choice)doesn't mean that it's still not the best place for peace and
> l> progress.
>
>
> If I wouldn't have known your ideas, I would have thought that
> somebody is trying to make a bad cynical joke to show how much the USA
> is a failed state.
The USA is not a state - it is a voluntary collection of states. And,
in all this, looking at the would/could/should scenarios, the *state* of
Louisiana comes up as the one who shoulders the responsibility for many
of the things that went wrong.
> You can not seriously claim that the USA is a great state, bringing
> racism, colonialism, wars, "shock and awe", i.e. terror, military
> dicatorships, torture, and mass killings to the world, just to leave
> each and every of its citizens helpless against the powers of nature.
We're *all* helpless against the powers of nature - anyone who tells you
otherwise is deluding themselves. Sure, we can create structures that
*should* hold to certain forces, but few of even these structures could
survive a direct hit from a tornado - and there's nowhere you can go on
land where you can't have one of those.
And your list is rich... Who was it again that liberated a significant
portion of your country, back around, let's say, 1945? Do you really
think that the most wealthy and the freest country in the world is an
abject failure? That the country is worthless because of a poor
response to one natural disaster?
> The tens of thousands of people trapped in New Orleans did not get
> out of the city, because they did not "heed warnings", but because the
> COULD NOT MAKE THAT CHOICE either because they had not the means, i.e.
> no car of their own, or because they were ill, handicapped, in a
> nursing home or hospital, whatever.
You mean to tell me that within the course of a *year*, these folks
couldn't figure out a way out of New Orleans? Panhandle for the $49 bus
ticket to Baton Rouge. Heck, you could probably *walk* across the
bridge to the north side of the lake in a w, and your chances of
surviving Katrina's aftermath go up dramatically.
Although we may joke about things costing "an arm and a leg," most poor
people do have feet (and, in this country, shoes to cover their feet,
thanks to the generosity of their fellow man).
The handicapped / nursing home populations are a bit different. If they
were the only people that were having to be saved, they would have been
covered fine.
> You claim that being poor in the USA just means that you have to
> die when the hurricane hits.
No - what you have here is people making choices. There are folks who
balanced the risks of living there/staying there against the risks of
leaving, or the effort of relocating, and decided that they would rather
stay there. It is not the government's place to be there, ready to
catch someone if their choice turns out to be a bad one.
> But people to organize collectivities, which means in today's world
> states, to organize for the common tasks and problems. The state USA
> has obviously failed before that challenge.
Our country was not founded to keep people out of the rain. Our
Declaration of Independence and Constitution are online - that is why
our country was founded.
> So when this is useless and failed, it should be replaced. I think
> that the failure of the USA as a state as shown in the incapacity to
> deal with the upcoming catastrophe Katrina, will be a watershed like
> the 1972 earthquake in Nicaragua, where a few years later the US-
> sponsored Somoza dictatorship ended, just after having bombed their
> own people - and when I see the military on their threatening patrols
> in New Orleans, I think that might come faster.
I hope that the military *does* take out our "own people" - the thugs
who looted pawn shops and gun stores and have now formed their gangs who
think they're going to be allowed to run the city. They're delusional,
they're dangerous, and they need to be eliminated. You won't find many
people in this country that disagree with me on that - I have yet to
talk to someone who does. (And I *know* I'm not that convincing to talk
to... :> ) It will *not* result in our country falling in on itself.
What is striking is to contrast New Orleans' mayor's statements with
Rudy Giuliani's statements (then the mayor of New York City) after
September 11th. Giuliani's comments were comments of hope,
determination, and condolence to those who lost loved ones. NO's
mayor's comments are something along the lines of "Why haven't you
helped us yet?" Attitude has a lot to do with the success of any kind
of rebuilding. New Yorkers had it - do the residents of Louisiana?
(I'm not hearing this defeatest spirit and "poor pitiful us" from
Biloxi, MS; Gulfport, MS; or Mobile, AL. It seems to be confined to New
Orleans. Consequently, look for much quicker progress in restoring
*these* towns to their pre-Katrina state.)
No one event, especially a natural one (over which we can *never* have
any control), is going to sink this nation. Freedom is a stubborn
thing, being one of the natural yearnings of the human spirit. A
dispassionate assessment of the situation needs to be done, and a
decision made about what should be done with New Orleans. (Is it smart
to have a city 70 feet below sea level?)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-09-02, 6:55 pm |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:912d3$4318d7a9$45491c57$22559@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> (I'm not hearing this defeatest spirit and "poor pitiful us" from
> Biloxi, MS; Gulfport, MS; or Mobile, AL. It seems to be confined to New
> Orleans. Consequently, look for much quicker progress in restoring
> *these* towns to their pre-Katrina state.)
To be fair, none of these cities are facing the sort of infrastructure
devastation that New Orleans seems to have faced -- destruction of the power
grid, destruction of the water system, destruction of the sewer system
destruction of the communications lines, and 80% of the land area of the
city under water with the level still, last I heard, rising.
The Netherlands works Real Hard to keep the water out of the land it's
reclaimed from the North Sea over the last several hundred years (the base
of the ATC tower at Schiphol Airport Amsterdam is 5 meters below the level
of the North Sea), but if all or even a significant part of the arable land
in the Netherlands were suddenly swamped by twenty feet of salt water, I
think the Dutch would be a little discouraged as well. The same for the
residents of Venice, and a number of other cities skating on the edge of
being under water to start with.
But more to the point, the only what-I-would-call-cities I can think of
offhand in which archaeological evidence shows such complete and immediate
devastation from natural disaster are those destroyed by volcanic
eruptions -- in particular Herculaneum and Pompeii, and (perhaps) to a
lesser degree Martinique -- and New Orleans is quite a bit bigger than
either one of them ever was.
Biloxi/Gulfport's big problem, from what I gather, was the destruction of
its *economic* base in the form of the gambling industry housed on barges,
not so much the physical destruction of the infrastructure of the cities and
the residential neighborhoods in particular.
-Chuck Stevens
| |
|
| Lueko Willms wrote:
>
> Even the New York Times got some clues:
The New York Times? with a clue? You've got to be kidding. :) The
"Old Grey Lady" has shown some signs of Alzheimer's in the past several
years...
> A Can't-Do Government
>
> By PAUL KRUGMAN
Wow - I can just feel the positivity emanating from that title! I guess
we should give up now!
> First question: Why have aid and security taken so long to arrive?
> Katrina hit five days ago - and it was already clear by last Friday
> that Katrina could do immense damage along the Gulf Coast. Yet the
> response you'd expect from an advanced country never happened.
> Thousands of Americans are dead or dying, not because they refused to
> evacuate, but because they were too poor or too sick to get out
> without help - and help wasn't provided. Many have yet to receive any
> help at all.
>
> There will and should be many questions about the response of state
> and local governments; in particular, couldn't they have done more to
> help the poor and sick escape? But the evidence points, above all, to
> a stunning lack of both preparation and urgency in the federal
> government's response.
I disagree with the second paragraph. It does not point, above all, to
a deficiency in the federal government. People like Mr. Krugman are
part of the problem in this country. Who knows better how Louisiana
needs to spend infrastructure dollars - two people in Washington DC, or
the state government in Baton Rouge?
> Even military resources in the right place weren't ordered into
> action. "On Wednesday," said an editorial in The Sun Herald in Biloxi,
> Miss., "reporters listening to horrific stories of death and survival
> at the Biloxi Junior High School shelter looked north across Irish
> Hill Road and saw Air Force personnel playing basketball and
> performing calisthenics. Playing basketball and performing
> calisthenics!"
That sounds fishy to me. Air Force personnel assigned to Keesler AFB in
Biloxi were in shelters until Wednesday, I believe. Also, the vast
majority of Keesler's personnel are trainees in technical fields - so,
not only are they barely acclimated to the Air Force, most of the
training they've received is in programming computers, or running
weather equipment. The biggest help they can be is keeping themselves
in phyiscal shape, so that once someone who can organize and delegate
grunt-level tasks to them gets there, they'll have the physical strength
to do it.
Speaking of Keesler - it's pretty much leveled. Over 90% of the
buildings on base have some structural damage, up to being completely
destroyed. Keesler is one of the victims - how ironic that even during
this time of national catastrophe, the left in this country *still*
can't hide their disdain for the organization that keeps their country free.
> Second question: Why wasn't more preventive action taken? After 2003
> the Army Corps of Engineers sharply slowed its flood-control work,
> including work on sinking levees. "The corps," an Editor and Publisher
> article says, citing a series of articles in The Times-Picayune in New
> Orleans, "never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of
> the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security - coming at the same
> time as federal tax cuts - was the reason for the strain."
>
> In 2002 the corps' chief resigned, reportedly under threat of being
> fired, after he criticized the administration's proposed cuts in the
> corps' budget, including flood-control spending.
What did Paul Krugman know, and when did he know it? :) It's easy to
point fingers *now*, but his criticism would ring much more true if he
had been fighting for those funds *before* it happens.
> I don't think this is a simple tale of incompetence. The reason the
> military wasn't rushed in to help along the Gulf Coast is, I believe,
> the same reason nothing was done to stop looting after the fall of
> Baghdad. Flood control was neglected for the same reason our troops in
> Iraq didn't get adequate armor.
And who belly-aches to no end about the funding our military *does* get?
These people want it both ways, and it's just infuriating. And heaven
forbid you should ever stomach any cuts in domestic spending. (Sure,
let's fund after-school activities instead of arming our
military/shoring up the levees...) *Everyone* is guilty of underfunding
this aspect - but, as the saying goes, hindsight *is* 20/20.
> At a fundamental level, I'd argue, our current leaders just aren't
> serious about some of the essential functions of government. They like
> waging war, but they don't like providing security, rescuing those in
> need or spending on preventive measures. And they never, ever ask for
> shared sacrifice.
Nice claim, but rather short on veracity.
> So America, once famous for its can-do attitude, now has a can't-do
> government that makes excuses instead of doing its job. And while it
> makes those excuses, Americans are dying.
And, no matter what the government does, every day, Americans are dying.
It isn't limited to natural disasters. I suppose that limiting the
speed limit on major highways to 40 MPH (from its current 70 MPH in most
places) would probably save lives. But the general public would never
go for it. To them, the risk of a crash at higher speeds outweighs the
inconvenience of always going 40.
> Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
I just left that in since I quoted significant portions of the
editorial. :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| Chris wrote:
> All:
>
> How truly it is, that a simple post to offer thoughts and prayers
> to hundreds of thousands of displaced and suffering people has
> degenerated into political finger pointing. I think many people who
> posted here have missed the point.
It's not political finger pointing. Calling the nation I've sworn to
protect a failure is going to get a response (unless I can tell it's
posted just to try to get a response).
> These are PEOPLE first and foremost. Their plight is no different than
> that of other recent catastrophe victims, no matter their global
> location; from the tsunami in Asia, to mudslides in Columbia, to floods
> in China. This is a HUMAN tragedy playing out before the eyes of the
> world - it shouldn't be made to be a political travesty as well.
I agree. However, once accusations are made, they just cannot stand
unchallenged. Heck, even CNN is running things like "What are the
political implications of Katrina for President Bush?" I agree - there
should be none. Last I checked, the One who controls the weather does
not live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! :)
> Its not important how we got to this point in time. Hopefully history
> truly will be the best teacher and future generations will learn from
> our mistakes. But right now, that should not be the focus here. It
> shouldn't be politics and idealism. You have fellow human beings from
> all different walks of life that are in grave danger and in serious
> need of your compassion and support.
It is somehwat ironic that what could have been one of Louisiana's
finest hour is turning into one of Houston's finest hours. Talk about
stepping up. :) Houston is doing a great service to these folks, and
I'm glad.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| Chuck Stevens wrote:
> Biloxi/Gulfport's big problem, from what I gather, was the destruction of
> its *economic* base in the form of the gambling industry housed on barges,
> not so much the physical destruction of the infrastructure of the cities and
> the residential neighborhoods in particular.
That's not just Biloxi/Gulfport's problem - the entire state of
Mississippi was the poorest state in the Union *before* all this. I
certainly hope that if these casinos rebuild, they will be allowed to do
it in such a way that they're not as susceptible to these sorts of problems.
My wife and I spent three wonderful days at the Beau Rivage for her
birthday/Valentine's Day one year, and never dropped a dime in a slot
machine or a chip on a poker table. The resort was fantastic, even
without the casino. I really hope they rebuild (and I believe they
will, as their building is still standing - hopefully the foundation
hasn't been weakened beyond repair).
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-09-03, 3:55 am |
| This is a very good response to a provocative and inappropriate post from
Lueko.
Chris has summed up nicely (and approriately as he instigated the thread)
and I'm not going to add to his post, other than to agree that the needs of
people transcend politics.
The world is watching New Orleans. How the world reacts to events there is a
good indication of the state of the world, not of the state of Louisiana or
the United States of America.
Pete.
TOP POST - no more.
I've read the whole thread and was surprised that
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:912d3$4318d7a9$45491c57$22559@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> Lueko Willms wrote:
>
> The USA is not a state - it is a voluntary collection of states. And, in
> all this, looking at the would/could/should scenarios, the *state* of
> Louisiana comes up as the one who shoulders the responsibility for many of
> the things that went wrong.
>
>
> We're *all* helpless against the powers of nature - anyone who tells you
> otherwise is deluding themselves. Sure, we can create structures that
> *should* hold to certain forces, but few of even these structures could
> survive a direct hit from a tornado - and there's nowhere you can go on
> land where you can't have one of those.
>
> And your list is rich... Who was it again that liberated a significant
> portion of your country, back around, let's say, 1945? Do you really
> think that the most wealthy and the freest country in the world is an
> abject failure? That the country is worthless because of a poor response
> to one natural disaster?
>
>
> You mean to tell me that within the course of a *year*, these folks
> couldn't figure out a way out of New Orleans? Panhandle for the $49 bus
> ticket to Baton Rouge. Heck, you could probably *walk* across the bridge
> to the north side of the lake in a w, and your chances of surviving
> Katrina's aftermath go up dramatically.
>
> Although we may joke about things costing "an arm and a leg," most poor
> people do have feet (and, in this country, shoes to cover their feet,
> thanks to the generosity of their fellow man).
>
> The handicapped / nursing home populations are a bit different. If they
> were the only people that were having to be saved, they would have been
> covered fine.
>
>
> No - what you have here is people making choices. There are folks who
> balanced the risks of living there/staying there against the risks of
> leaving, or the effort of relocating, and decided that they would rather
> stay there. It is not the government's place to be there, ready to catch
> someone if their choice turns out to be a bad one.
>
>
> Our country was not founded to keep people out of the rain. Our
> Declaration of Independence and Constitution are online - that is why our
> country was founded.
>
>
> I hope that the military *does* take out our "own people" - the thugs who
> looted pawn shops and gun stores and have now formed their gangs who think
> they're going to be allowed to run the city. They're delusional, they're
> dangerous, and they need to be eliminated. You won't find many people in
> this country that disagree with me on that - I have yet to talk to someone
> who does. (And I *know* I'm not that convincing to talk to... :> ) It
> will *not* result in our country falling in on itself.
>
> What is striking is to contrast New Orleans' mayor's statements with Rudy
> Giuliani's statements (then the mayor of New York City) after September
> 11th. Giuliani's comments were comments of hope, determination, and
> condolence to those who lost loved ones. NO's mayor's comments are
> something along the lines of "Why haven't you helped us yet?" Attitude
> has a lot to do with the success of any kind of rebuilding. New Yorkers
> had it - do the residents of Louisiana?
>
> (I'm not hearing this defeatest spirit and "poor pitiful us" from Biloxi,
> MS; Gulfport, MS; or Mobile, AL. It seems to be confined to New Orleans.
> Consequently, look for much quicker progress in restoring *these* towns to
> their pre-Katrina state.)
>
> No one event, especially a natural one (over which we can *never* have any
> control), is going to sink this nation. Freedom is a stubborn thing,
> being one of the natural yearnings of the human spirit. A dispassionate
> assessment of the situation needs to be done, and a decision made about
> what should be done with New Orleans. (Is it smart to have a city 70 feet
> below sea level?)
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
> ~ / \/ o ~ ~
> ~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
> ~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> ~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
> ~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
> ~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-09-03, 3:55 am |
| Lueko, whatever your political persuasion, you don't put the boot in when
people are in trouble.
Doing so gains no converts to your point of view.
You are entitled to be rabidly anti American, and hold whatever views you
hold, but there is an appropriate time to express them, and an inappropriate
time. If someone you are unfriendly with or disapprove of dies, you don;'t
go to the funeral and berate the mourners with a list of your perceived
injustices, or a stream of abuse at the recently departed. (And if you did,
you would very possibly leave in ambulance...)
A single post, summarising your points, made to a different thread and
marked OT, in a few ws time might have done much more for your case than
your posts here.
I'm dened amost as much by your bad manners (which I find particularly
unusual in a German person) as I am by the tragedy in New Orleans.
Pete.
TOP POST - no more.
"Lueko Willms" <l.willms@jpberlin.de> wrote in message
news:9d5MUDVeflB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de...
>. On 01.09.05
> wrote lxi0007@netscape.net (LX-i)
> on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
> in 5e059$431736b7$45491c57$19401@KNOLOGY.NET
> about Re: OT: Katrina's Wrath
>
>
> LW>> When poor Cuba can do it, why not the rich USA? They could
> LW>> have organized a dozen or more planes, hundreds of buses, and
> LW>> what have you, to organize a complete evacuation of the city.
>
> l> That's the thing about freedom - you have the freedom to make an
> l> unwise choice. I'd much prefer it that way to the way Cuba is run.
> l> :) It's not the *government's* responsibility to get people out - the
> l> truly responsible thing would be to not live below sea level to begin
> l> with! In this country, you are responsible for you (and your family) -
> l> no matter how many socialistic programs are enacted (or attempted),
> l> the bottom line is that each person has the power to choose what they
> l> do, where they go, where they live.
> l>
> l> Think about the mayor's year-old warning another way - if people heard
> l> that warning a year ago, and knew they would not be able to get out
> l> the way things were, why did *they* (the people) not do anything?
>
>
> l> Government in this country has a limited function. Providing for the
> l> defense of the land is probably the biggest one. Name for me one
> l> other country that has given more to this Earth than the USA has over
> l> the past 100 years. There's not one! Just because people don't heed
> l> warnings (which, freedom being what it is, they can make that
> l> choice)doesn't mean that it's still not the best place for peace and
> l> progress.
>
>
> If I wouldn't have known your ideas, I would have thought that
> somebody is trying to make a bad cynical joke to show how much the USA
> is a failed state.
>
> You can not seriously claim that the USA is a great state, bringing
> racism, colonialism, wars, "shock and awe", i.e. terror, military
> dicatorships, torture, and mass killings to the world, just to leave
> each and every of its citizens helpless against the powers of nature.
>
> The tens of thousands of people trapped in New Orleans did not get
> out of the city, because they did not "heed warnings", but because the
> COULD NOT MAKE THAT CHOICE either because they had not the means, i.e.
> no car of their own, or because they were ill, handicapped, in a
> nursing home or hospital, whatever.
>
> You claim that being poor in the USA just means that you have to
> die when the hurricane hits.
>
> But people to organize collectivities, which means in today's world
> states, to organize for the common tasks and problems. The state USA
> has obviously failed before that challenge.
>
> So when this is useless and failed, it should be replaced. I think
> that the failure of the USA as a state as shown in the incapacity to
> deal with the upcoming catastrophe Katrina, will be a watershed like
> the 1972 earthquake in Nicaragua, where a few years later the US-
> sponsored Somoza dictatorship ended, just after having bombed their
> own people - and when I see the military on their threatening patrols
> in New Orleans, I think that might come faster.
>
>
> Yours,
>
>
> Lüko Willms http://www.willms-edv.de
> /--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --
>
> Wir wohnen in Göttingen in Scheiterhaufen, die mit Türen und Fenstern
> versehen sind. -G.C.Lichtenberg
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-09-03, 3:55 am |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:8279b$4318ea0d$45491c57$29009@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
>
> That's not just Biloxi/Gulfport's problem - the entire state of
> Mississippi was the poorest state in the Union *before* all this. I
> certainly hope that if these casinos rebuild, they will be allowed to do
> it in such a way that they're not as susceptible to these sorts of
> problems.
>
Maybe a floating crap game... :-)?
Pete.
| |
| HeyBub 2005-09-05, 6:55 pm |
| Chuck Stevens wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:912d3$4318d7a9$45491c57$22559@KNOLO
GY.NET.. | | |