NOLA - 2 years later
 

here is a slide show of some of the progress (or lack thereof) post Katrina

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20364536/?gt1=10252

I really don't see the wisdom of repopulating a city which is below sea level. Perhaps it's best that these areas are not rebuilt? Another flood and billions more dollars down the drain is a certainty. I can think of no good reason to be doing all of this.

Really, the geology of NOLA is a wetland. Of course when it was "founded" in 1600's people at that time did not care about that. Also, the Creola Indians occupied and hunted on the land albeit as nomads in a 200-300 mile seasonal radius.

NOLA was a huge port city with tall ships that would gain entry into the Mississippi. NOLA was the gateway to the mid-western North, such as Iowa and Ohio.

It really wasn't until the war of 1812 that changed a lot of that.

So the only reason folks rebuild there is because of history... The reason there are floods are because the natural hurricane breakers were destroyed overtime by man. There were little atolls off the coast that provided enough protect to downgrade a hurricane with the freshwater run off that this naturally cold (it takes hot water to fuel a hurricane).

These atolls were "shaved" off by many industries near NOLA overtime. But most noticeably the off-shore drilling that has yet to pay Louisiana state taxes because the oil companies consider their property in "international waters" although these rigs are only offshore by 10-20 miles. No Federal or State taxes go back to the States or people to maintain the ecology of the area.

Same thing as the "Dustbowl Era" in the early 20th, but this time it is on water. I think there is a Science or Nature article(s) that discuss why Katrina destroy NOLA the way it did.

Thank you, AKA Monet. I would just add that for many in the area, it is more than history. It is home. Also, New Orleans is still a major port and gateway to middle America.

I don't think your dust bowl comparison really holds water. I live in what some might call the epicenter of the dust bowl. Such a thing will doubtful ever happen again. The Army Core of Engineers has constructed an absolutely massive reservoir system in the dust bowl states. Take last summer -- we had barely any rain at all. A few of our more remote reservoirs got dangerously low, but the key reservoirs were fine.

I do think areas such as Western Kansas and Texas are in some pretty significant danger though. They're pulling *a lot* more water out of the aquifer than is replenishable. I don't think they're headed for a dust bowl though, but perhaps a cessation of agricultural activities is in the cards.

^^^I am not sure exactly, but it was a full ecological breakdown during the dustbowl. There were more things that happened scientifically than losing major aquifers and lack of rainfall. I think it was use of fertilizer that was in the run off which killed off a significant portion of certain animals and insects vital to keeping the "structure" of the soil. Continuous use of these items without replenishment or crop rotations, eventually cause crop growth failure essentially making the soil turn into sand. That is why ADM and Monsanto and Dupont make some of their products.

The dustbowl was a human ecological disaster.

The damage seen in Hurricane Katrina, a natural disaster, was due to a lack of ecological and infrastructural maintenance.

There's a huge difference in building a coastal city below sea level and failing to properly manage a water supply in a naturally arid area. Flooding in New Orleans again is a certainty. I don't care how many billions of dollars are spent, it'll happen again. Thousands of lives will be lost. I'd venture to say this'll happen in the next 20 years.

As for another dust bowl? Perhaps a mini dust bowl limited to parts of Colorado and Kansas when the High Plains aquifer runs dry, but about the largest town affected there will be Liberal, KS.

Heritage and history are stupid reasons to ask people to live in such a dangerous place.

Well, logically, yeah, it is rather dumb to rebuild in a swamp and build levee systems. However, man's logic when he surveyed an undeveloped NOLA did not entail knowing things about ecology, which is considered in modernity.

Yeah, billions of dollars can be wasted, but it is not because they are "rebuilding", it is more because there is some kind of "sinkhole" that "those groups" like to funnel money into and watch is toilet bowl down...

I.e. the Dutch have a really good Scandinavian levee system that the US decided to NOT purchase because of politics...

There are combination of issues that cause the first dustbowl. We forget that large sum of animals and insects are killed allowing certain other opportunistic "hearty" animals and insects thrive. It is my understanding too that locusts thrived in the dustbowl era. There were both cotton weevils and molds on the corn where the inappropriate use of pesticides and fertilizers.

That is why you have numerous scientists making sure that fossil fuel use is not the reason why there is global warming because if it is, it explains the ecological and natural disasters we are seeing these effects globally.

It's not just heritage and history, as important as those are. It's simple geography - the reason it became an important city in the first place. It is the port at the end of the Mississippi river, and vital for transportation.
New Orleans did much better before so many of the surrounding wetlands were destroyed (by man). They acted as a "buffer zone" for the city. The disaster came about because of engineering incompetence. The major flooding happened AFTER the storm had come and gone - with the breaking of the levees. And then there's the complete incompetence at the city, state and federal level - but we all know about that.
I will never understand how no one will bat an eye at spending millions upon millions for the Big Dig in Boston - but will begrudge spending the necessary money to make New Orleans safe. No one argued that if we rebuild the WTC we are just making another target for terrorists.
Were New Orleans on the east coast we would not be having a discussion at all. Not that I'm bitter.

NOLA - the biggest natural gentrification project in modern times.....

...just my opinion

No really -- a huge part of it was that we hadn't really developed a resevoir system. We counted on the constant flow of the water as something we could rely on. That, of course is stupid. Still today, most of Oklahoma/Kansas is reliant on rainwater and reservoirs for potable water. We don't really have much in the way of rivers (yeah, we have a few, but they're mostly very small). The situation really isn't comparable to New Orleans because in all likelihood, there won't be another dust bowl.

I'd say there's about a 100% chance, however, that NOLA will be underwater again within the next century.

We can begrudge Boston for their Big Dig, but we should know that the money there isn't being flushed down a toilet. Boston isn't likely to be destroyed within the next century (at least not by a natural act). We can say with a decent amount of certainty that New Orleans will.

The parts of NOLA which were underwater ought to stay there. As for the poorer parts of town? I really could care less. They were built in places people weren't meant to live. The United States is full of habitable land which is above sea level. Move them there.

Flushed down a toilet?
 

No, with the Big Dig the money is falling off and hitting them on the head!:)

But seriously - should we then stop building/abandon those parts of the country that will, undoubtly, be hit with a major earthquake in the next 100 years? Or how about other parts of the country that flood? I've had to deal with three rounds of tornadoes here - including one that hit my property. Let's get people out of Tornado Alley! And you'd be surprised at the number of areas around the country where scientists tell us it is only a question of when, not if, they will be hit with an earthquake. Check out the data on the east coast.

Following your logic, the vast majority of the U.S. would have to be abandoned. I agree that there are sections of New Orleans which should not be rebuilt - sensitivity of certain groups be damned - but we need to build smart. There is no reason that New Orleans has to flood again. It is not a given - not a certainty. Throwing up our collective hands and saying "No way" is not the answer.

And I happen to think that heritage and history are important. We are well on our way to being a country of soul-less homogenized strip centers.

Earthquakes are uncertain. Further, their impact has been lessened by improved building standards and materials. Tornadoes are even more uncertain. I've lived in Oklahoma City my entire life. I've never been hit by a tornado. Chances are, I never will be.

But a flood in New Orleans? Something which will cost billions and wipe out thousands? It is a certainty. It cannot be avoided. Maybe it could if we dumped a few hundred billion back into it.

Is that really worth it so that a bunch of (pardon my lack of political correctness) poor people can live in the middle of a swamp? What are the American people getting for their money here?

take ur pick....50 billion (that coincidentally Bush is asking for now) to send to Iraq or use that money to support those that are still out of homes in NOLA...

So the government owes them new homes now? Iraq is important for strategic and international reasons which we could delve into in another thread.

Even if I concede that it's stupid to spend $50 billion in Iraq, it's still stupid to spend any money -- one dime on returning New Orleans to a state where it can once again be flooded and destroyed.

You should have just said this in the first place. It seems your true objection isn't to the location of the land NO is sitting on - it's to the "poor people" who wish to live there because it's all they know, and what they love.

Take for example, Malibu, CA, an area poorly planned, subject to wildfires and suffering from crappy irrigation. In '95 there were massive mudslides which destroyed million-dollar homes and blocked the PCH. There were slides again in 97, 98, 01 and 05. Presumably, the government spends plenty of money shoring up the cliffs, yet, down they come time and time again.

Who lives in Malibu? People who can afford to rebuild, and choose to do so because it's home to them.

The idea that our government should just "move them" elsewhere is ludicrous, and something of a slippery slope.

(Now, as far as spending $50 billion in Iraq, that's irrelevant here. And if that's what Congress is willing to give, then so be it. Restricting funding isn't going to help the situation.)

The difference is -- the people in Malibu pay to live there. The folks in NOLA, as far as I know expect to have the taxpayer foot the bill for them to live in NOLA.

Also, the folks in Malibu tend to have insurance. I don't even think you can buy flood insurance in NOLA.

Rich people have more choices and a higher standard of living than poor people. That's just the way things are in the U.S.

Jesus christ Kevin could you be a bigger asshole? I'm thinking no.

The government owes these people their homes because they fucked it up in the goddamn first place and then when the inevitable happened, they fucked up with FEMA. You live in Oklahoma. If your home gets torn apart by a tornado I won't be sympathetic, I'll just think, 'well you shouldn't have lived there in the first place because you know tornadoes happen all the time. You won't get a dime for rebuilding.'

The government cause a category 5 storm to hit New Orleans? I think FEMA did a terrible job in the initial response, but the local response, etc. were pretty pitiful there as well. Lack of an evacuation and all.

The people there knew the hurricane was coming yet they didn't get the hell out. Most also did not insure their homes against something which was pretty much inevitable. In my opinion, it sucks to be them. They got free trailers to live in, big FEMA checks, etc. Many have gone on and made decent lives for themselves elsewhere, others continue to wallow in squalor after blowing all of their money on plasma tvs. I figure the government has done more than its fair share to bail these folks out. It would be even more inefficient to set the stage for a repeat of this catastrophe (which apparently is what you're arguing in favor of).

You're right. Unless a large area is wiped out, I probably won't get a dime. Typically, tornadoes don't do damage to large areas. They hit a few houses, ruin a few roofs, maybe destroy a few things, that's it. While there are those big F5 tornadoes, they are extremely rare. There are only 2 or 3 of them recorded (ever) and they only affect an area about a mile wide. That's okay though because I am insured. If a tornado hits I'm definitely not going to put myself into the position of relying on the government for anything.

Flood insurance is currently (and was pre-Katrina) required in certain zones in New Orleans. However, due to the federal government's (underestimated and incorrect) insurance maps of areas of potential flooding, people who lived outside of these zones didn't bother buying policies.

Landslides aren't covered by homeowner's insurance.

And you're right, rich people do have more options, and that's ok if they're spending money themselves. However, the gov't has spent millions on areas where the rich live. Why not do the same for the poor? I don't think these people simply expect the taxpayer to "foot the bill," because before all this went down, these people were (and some still are) taxpayers.

The only realistic thing the government can do is rebuild, either sooner or later. And it's looking like later.

BTW: Oklahoma received federal assistance in 2003 due to tornadoes.

Also Kevin, thanks for saying that my sorority sisters are wasting their time down there helping to rebuild, I'm sure they appreciate it.

And congratulations on your insurance-what if you didn't have any because you didn't have daddy to help you out? Then your home gets wiped by a rare but possible F5 tornado. Then someone says you don't deserve a dime because you should have known and could have moved.

Kevin, a little empathy for these people. Or do they beat that out of you in law school?

It's reasonable to rely on government reports when purchasing insurance. If the government were a private entity, they'd be liable. I have no trouble with the government paying to help these folks out. As to the rest? Nope.

Didn't know that. I've never had to build my home on a cliff (not too many around here). I imagine the government out there is fine with doing these things as these rich folks probably generate a lot of tax money as well as jobs and other economic growth for the area. Liberals always use the fact that the rich enjoy more benefits from the federal government as a means of justifying "progressive" tax systems. I guess you can always use this as an example to point to.

We also did in 1999. We have had tornadoes every single year though -- damage each year as well. If my house is the only one in my neighborhood to get leveled, I'm out of luck when it comes to FEMA.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and people who live on flat plains shouldn't act like they are aware of homeowner's insurance policies in places with topography.

Well check it Kevin....everytime Florida gets hit good by a hurricane,whihc is fairly often, they can get federal assistance and people go back...so you mean to tell me that people in New Orleans don't deserve the same?

Hell they spent 185 million on the Superdome BUT there are still people there that stayed through the wait for US rescue and still don't have a home....

But you have insurance, so it's ok, right?

The majority of NO citizens didn't have insurance because of the government's erroneous flood zone reports.

Kevin,

Sweetheart, maybe it is an engineering feat some people have to build it right... To make it right which they should have done in the first place, but did not because back then when the levees were built, some places were built better than other places because of skin color. Let's be honest. Now, it is a different day and age. Natural Disasters are equal opportunity killers. It does not matter WHO you are or what you look like, they come. And when they do, the best we can do is help the helpless become prepared. Might I say it is the Christian thing to do in America.

Should it cost that much for the "sins of the past"? Well, how much is your livelihood and homestead worth to you if you lost EVERYTHING in the land of the free and home of the brave?

I live under 3 volcanoes now. 1 currently active. If the biggest one explodes, there will be mini-Earthquakes for a solid year+ building up in intensity. At least that is what the USGS and volcanologists tell me.

I also live under a wind-storm prone area with 100 mph+ winds that knock big trees over. And, I live under constant deluge of rain, and it snows in the winter. The tiny bit of sunshine I get enthuses me to relish in it and makes this place bearable. I did not choose to live here. But my "heart" is here, I must follow him. Would I trade now?

Hayle no! But, if I lost my house due to a natural disaster, and I did not have the money, I expect my democratically elected government both Feds, State and local to do all they can for me to get me and my family back upon my feet. Especially after I am paying State Farm, USAA, etc. all THAT money for something...

And Earthquake insurance, what a rip. Your house has to blow up due to gas leaks for them to pay... So, if you smell gas, light a match?

And insurances, do not pay for a DMZ in a US city... It is not suppose to be that bad in the US...

But the irony, it is. And if anything that beoytch Hurricane Katrina uncovered the corruption that the entire World saw and they were shocked...

Everyone was and is culpable for that...

Should you and I the taxpayer pay for this? How come some Corporations do not step up? Namely ExxonMobile who owes Lousiana and Mississippi state taxes for their offshore platforms. Hayle BP--they've got money and might pay it. Dubai ports world might pay it as an investment. And you have all these illegal immigrant workers, make their resident countries do a deal--like Citgo--Hugo Chavez wanted to help anyways... The local reconstruction companies could use some benefits.

It just sounds like folks are clueless about restructuring and improvements. They want the same life. The reality is, they will NEVER have the same life. But, what we all can do is get to a BETTER life than before... Promote promise... And realistically, not everyone will have it, but we can dream.

One must understand that we are dealing with a broken people--some folks like my Soror AKA2D has not given up, she works very hard to make it everyday as a teacher. But there are others, that want to fall. Our job, as cheerleaders, it to make sure they keep rising and keep that vision.

Hurricane Katrina may have beayotch slapped the area, but she did not hurt our American resolve.

We, the people, can do better!

Excellent point... it seems to me that people in FL spend a good chunk of the year evacuating and returning.

really...you mean those death traps that the govt handed out?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...Health_3089858



and most of those people COULDN'T AFFORD the insurance regfardless of thier income

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14456934/



You know, it's so easy to say some of what you say when it isn't you dealing with it.

Soror AKA_Monet... I think I ::heart:: you. :D

This sez more about why we need to take the 50 bil. that Bush wants to spend across seas and spend it down there


But much of New Orleans still looks like a wasteland, with businesses shuttered and houses abandoned. Basic services such as schools, libraries, public transportation and childcare are at half their original levels and only two-thirds of the region's licensed hospitals are open. Workers are often scarce. Rents have skyrocketed. Crime is rampant.

Along Mississippi's 70-mile shoreline, harsh economic realities are hampering rebuilding. Cities like Biloxi and Pascagoula are making progress, but areas nearer to Katrina's original landfall look barely improved, with most oceanfront lots still vacant and weedy.

Many projects are hamstrung by the soaring costs of construction and insurance, while federal funding has been slow to flow to cities. Other economic indicators are down — such as population, employment and housing supplies.

The performance by the president and the federal government in the immediate aftermath of the storm severely dented Bush's image as a take-charge leader. So, as on other visits, the president and his team arrived here armed with facts and figures to show how much the Bush administration has done to fulfill his promise 2 1/2 weeks after the storm that "we will do what it takes, we will stay as long as it takes, to help citizens rebuild."



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070830/...ush_katrina_28

Here is the news of his request
 

Bush asking for more cash to waste

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070829...s_070829152140

I don't really want to side with Kevin here at all, but I do have a question - if these people can't get/afford insurance, then aren't the citizens who live elsewhere effectively "insuring" the area through tax dollars?

Why is this something the government should have anything to do with?

Disaster funds are one thing - getting people back onto their feet with some assistance is a great idea, and a necessary duty of government. Doesn't it seem like the NO funding requests are going far beyond this, though, and toward propping people up rather than extending a helping hand?

Additionally, why do we act like insurance is some sort of right? That undermines what insurance really is supposed to be: pooling risk among a group. Insurance in this nation is beyond F-ed, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend the concept is something totally different.

EDIT: Daemon, seriously guy, don't you get why those things are not at all related to each other? You're beating a dead horse here. Start a new thread if you really think NO funding is being quashed by the war effort, and show some evidence of that.

Ok, why are people overlooking the fact that these people PAID TAXES and many still are? Were they not "insuring" others across the nation who received federal assistance for other natural disasters?

Also, it's not a matter of affording insurance. People based their decisions of whether or not to purchase a policy on federal government reports.

See above.

Why does it seem this way to you? It doesn't seem this way to me. I haven't had the opportunity to go back, but my best friend spent several weeks in NO for a journalism workshop and said it's pretty much a ghost town in a lot of the city. There are many, many places where it looks like the hurricane hit yesterday. "A helping hand" isn't going to do the trick.

It's not about insurance, it's about responsibility. These people are U.S. citizens who are unable to make something out of nothing, and people living 1500+ miles away seem to be having trouble comprehending that. The purpose of the government is to protect the citizens, and right now the federal government (as well as local and state) is failing.

Im sorry I must be 'stupid'

Bush paying lipservice in NOLA on the same day while asking for money from Congress that the US may not have so it can be spent elsewhere on top of the billions already being wasted and you need me to show evidence....?

They are NOT related?

Ok.

Let me say this again slowly...

You
Don't
See
These
Stories
Coming
Out of
Florida


and it gets hit regularly by hurricanes....and when the governor asks for money...he gets it....

and we arent even gonna get into the wildfires that seem to be happening yearly out in the midwest.

So WHY 2 years later and NOLA still looks a hot mess?

Reading in between the lines is indeed Fundamental

OK, but people who live in, say, the Pacific Northwest are paying in with a disproportional chance of getting anything back - it's not an equal pool, it runs downhill toward places with more risk. Turning the government into a giant insurer sounds like a recipe for disaster, and something that's well outside the bounds of what the government was founded for. Also, I'm not judging NOLA citizens for asking for the money or taking what they're offered, just saying that the concept seems flawed to me inherently.

I've never heard this before this thread, and it's very interesting - are there any particular reports I should read to fill myself in?

Is the concept that the government intentionally misled people in a fashion that prevented them from buying insurance?

I wasn't clear here, so I'll fill in some more - I think we go past the "helping hand" stage when we do anything beyond the most efficient and expedient solution to help people get on their feet. For this reason, I'm sure many people aren't even getting the 'helping hand' benefit (such as the ghost town areas), but on the whole the plan seems somewhat ostentatious. Wouldn't the simplest solution be to leave the areas with the worst damage alone, give funds to move people elsewhere (not even another city, but out of these areas) and fund things like jobs programs?

I'm certainly no disaster relief expert, but the desire to rebuild then upgrade seems like a terrible plan in terms of efficiency - thus, it must be catering to something beyond just getting people back on their feet. There is no requirement that anyone be allowed to live in a certain part of New Orleans, and it's not the government's job to guarantee that, right?

If a "helping hand" won't do the trick . . . what will? And why should that excessive amount of effort go into it? I've been to NO exactly twice in my life, and loved it both times, but I'm trying to get to where we talk about exactly what the government's duties entail, rather than wishcasting a return to a pre-Katrina state.

If it's about responsibility, you'll have to fill me in on how the government is responsible - unless you mean fulfilling their responsibility to the citizens of NO, which makes sense but seems like a completely different discussion wholly unrelated to the point I was making.

I agree that people cannot make something from nothing - that's my whole point, that the effort should be made to give people enough to make something . . . I just wonder if we're not giving more, and whether there are better ways to handle this sort of thing.

Sorry for the double-post, but the last one was long . . .

Don't be a dick about this - how absurd. Let me give you a similarly douchey response:

Say
what
you
really
mean.

You make innuendos about the difference between NO and FL, but give no real idea of comparison - I'm pretty sure Katrina did more damage to NO than any hurricane has ever done to a comparable city in FL. The freaking city was largely uninhabitable afterwards. You don't see FL saying this because the comparison probably isn't valid.

So what are you really implying? A racial bias? A preference toward his brother's state? Hell, these things might be accurate, but if that's the discussion, discuss that.

As far as comparing the war, there's zero evidence that the war has prevented any work on the city of New Orleans. There's no evidence that stopping the war tomorrow would lead to significant changes in New Orleans.

Just because the money for the war is misspent, it doesn't mean money is being taken from other places - this is simplified, obviously, but the concept is deficit spending. The US Government has probably made massive mistakes regarding rebuilding New Orleans, but these mistakes exist independent of the war effort. Argue that you would rather have that money for NO if you want, but don't act like I am the retard for asking you for actual discussion and support for your views.

Sugar08 is a great example for arguing your side with actual information, instead of inferring that I'm the simpleton. I guarantee you I am not.

First off, thanks for the intelligent response. I appreciate the discourse. Also, I apologize for the length in advance.

It is flawed, but it's the best that can be done right now. The U.S. is a collective, of sorts, and while currently, New Orleans may seem like a drain on resources, in a few years it may very well be another city across the country in the same boat. Not to sound completely holistic or anything, but I think that everything gets balanced out eventually. Take the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980, for example. More than a billion (not accounting for inflation) was spent by the government (and people in other parts of the nation who pay taxes), and while the death toll was relatively low, it was devastating to personal property.

And this is where I cry foul. It's impossible to ignore that most, not all, of the people affected by Katrina in the city of New Orleans are black and poor... we can't say the same for the people in Washington State.

You can find the information in this article. I don't think the government intentionally misled the people. I think the government underestimated (I don't know the intent) and citizens unfairly suffered.

True, and I agree that this may be driven out of nostalgia for the wonderful city that existed before the hurricane. And while the plan may not be the most efficient, it's certainly more efficient than what's currently happening: very little.

That's exactly what I meant. And I think it's exactly related to your point, which, if I recall correctly, was "why should the government get involved?" Because it's the responsibility of any government to do all that it can to bring it's citizens through a disaster. Our opinions differ on what form that responsibility should take.

There have to be, but unfortunately, I think the people running things aren't much better informed than we are. The utter destruction of a major city isn't something with which our government has much experience, so to expect the most efficient plan is probably expecting too much.

Insurance,etc.
 

Full disclosure - My father is a cousin of Huey Long. I've had family in New Orleans and LA forever. My husband's great -grandfather sculpted many of the beautiful monuments you go see in the cities of the dead, and his grandmother sang at the Court of Two Sisters. I love the city.

And I'm tired of everyone assuming that the only people affected by Katrina are the poor and uninsured. Insurance companies have run riot over claims - playing fast and loose with definitions of what constitutes wind damage, and what is water. Many thousands of people from all over the LA and Miss. coast are displaced, and found out that their insurance company was willing to let them hang out to dry. I know of many natives who wish to return, but have been unable because of the lack of basic services and security. These taxpayers are, I think, entitled to running water, electricity, and some measure of safety. But they can't get it. Some of them are still wrestling with their insurance companies, two years later. And until the engineering is taken care of, who wants to put themselves at the mercy of the Army Corps. of Engineers?
I've written everyone I can think of, from Oprah to Ray Nagin, with the idea that many of those who were poor and in government housing and wish to return should be allowed to as part of a works program. Teach them construction skills, and not only do you solve the labour shortage, you give them a means of pulling themselves out of the poverty they were mired in.They can support their families, who will in turn support the businesses that will make the community thrive. And this would work all along the Gulf Coast. It doesn't have to be a government program - private industry could do it. There are many small private programs that are working to bring New Orleans and her sister coastal cities back.
The government housing projects there were a festering sore that the government chose to ignore until they could no longer. Those people in the Superdome were following the instructions given to them by their leaders - many of them could not evacuate, and the city and state failed them by not evacuating them when they could. Anyone else recall the shots of yards of school buses, empty and flooded, which could have been used to evacuate people?
We need New Orleans for many reasons - as a port at the mouth of the Mississippi, as the spiritual and cultural home to so many different groups, and, YES, because of the heritage and history it contains. Do I expect the government to do it all? Hell,no - I just want them to provide the same level of infrastructure every other citizen in the U.S. has a right to expect, and I want them to straighten up the engineering nightmare that THEY put into place. And then I want them to get the hell out of the way, so the citizens of New Orleans can shine again.

Just wanted it repeated... Well said. :D

My sentiments exactly...

Everyone makes money off of NOLA from food to music, a cultural stronghold in America, then a Natural Disaster that caused piss poor levee design to have a complete enginneering failure that caused a flood. Then this comcominant disaster annihilated a corrupt local and state government and added an inept Fed government who should have taken over the reigns the minute the determined that crazy thing was headed in that direction...

Watching live on TV, just made me question my birthland and my birth right and I was not involved in anyway...

The several large insurance companies have FAILED their insurers in NOLA. Nationwide was one of them. They had issues that because the hurricane itself did not actually cause the damage, then flood insurance by storm surge would not apply. But if you have lost your entire house are you basically telling these people, "Go F Yourself?"

Then, you get and pay your tax bills from the feds and the state.

That is just a double-whammy and it is not right.

Yes, we should be proud to foot some of this bill because it is about CITIZENRY and being a part of the United States.