Where is the environmentalist outcry over hurricane Katrina?

[Zecryphon]

I was wondering today, why I haven't heard any outrage from groups like the Sierra Club and the Protect Our Wetlands group, over the devastation to the environment caused by hurricane Katrina. Usually, when there's an environmental disaster they're on the scene, protesting, pointing fingers and blaming everyone. If only people had listened to them, this (whatever disaster it happens to be) never would have happened. But where are they now? Strangely silent aren't they?

I said in another thread that the Sierra Club was responsible in large part to the disaster in New Orleans because the sued the Army Corps of Engineers to stop their reconstruction of over 300 miles of levee system, claiming it would destroy the wetlands and wipeout the black bear population. This I think was disregarded in large part because I heard about the story on the Fox news channel and confirmed it at www.nationalreviewonline.com. Jack from Kickasspodcast basically said that when people have to resort to those two places as sources of reliable information, it's just sad.

It turns out that while I was browsing the web, I came across another similar story about a plan that would have worked better than the one proposed by the Corps of Engineers in the 90's that was blocked with a lawsuit by the Sierra Club in 1996. The same lame reason was given, destroying the wetlands, fish, animals etc. etc. When Sierra won that suit the Corps had to stop their renovations.

You can read about the Sierra Club lawsuit in the 90's at www.nationalradioonline.com and type in Greens vs. Levees


You can read all about the Barrier That Could Have Worked at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-surge9sep09,1,7901524.story?page=2&cset=true&ctrack=1&coll=la-headlines-nation

I don't think the LA Times can be called an evil right wing conservative think tank do you? I know I've never thought of them that way, and I'm a member of the Reform party, because I'm sick of both the Republicans and Democrats. I can't really tell a difference between the two anymore. After reading the aforementioned stories, I think the environmental groups are directly responsible for this disaster happening and should now foot the bill, not the American taxpayer or the federal government. Why, should we pay to clean up their mess? Now, anyone who wants to disagree with me, feel free to. This is just my opinion based on facts.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[jimk]

There's plenty of blame to go around, but trying to pin it all on environmentalists is a stretch. Basically the levee system has ruined the Delta region, and that goes back a lot further than any environmental group.

The area was NEVER designed to be contained. It's SUPPOSED to flood, that's how a flood plain works. We're not supposed to be there. Period. Instead we've forced a lot of water to do things water doesn't want to do with hundreds of miles of channels and walls and pipes and pumps. Without the flooding and subsequent silt deposits...well, you see the results.

[Zecryphon]

There's plenty of blame to go around, but trying to pin it all on environmentalists is a stretch. Basically the levee system has ruined the Delta region, and that goes back a lot further than any environmental group.


Well that's true. But my question still remains. Shouldn't they be upset about all the damage? Shouldn't we have heard something like we have in other disasters, the Exxon Valdez for example. They love to get tons of media attention when others, especially capitalists are at fault. My point is, they know they're largely to blame, and that's why they're staying quiet. They're hoping this story won't get too much attention and they can silently ride this one out. The sad thing is though, that they won't take anything away from this. They won't have learned that sometimes they need to listen to other people who know what they're talking about. They also won't have learned that when you make bad decisions there are consequences. They should help foot the bill and the know it, and they won't. I have no sympathy for people who knowingly endanger the lives of hundreds of thousands of people with their actions and then when a horrific tragedy strikes like this one, they're nowhere to be seen or coming forward and taking responsibility.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[jeffoest]

So... so you have a positive recommendation / solution to throw on the table for discussion or are you just trying to blow off some stream about some "group" you don't particularly like?

If the devastation you are talking about is the pumping of the horribly chemical and disease-laden water back into Lake Pontchartrain and subsequently out to the Gulf, I don't think there is anybody that likes that. Especially the Gulf Oyster Industry. But I haven't seen any reasonable alternatatives proposed. Cleaning all the water that will be pumped out would take months and billions of dollars. There is benefit to move along quickly. The sooner you get New Orleans populated, the quicker these folks will start getting their city, their blocks, their houses, repaired and cleaned up properly. I think people, environmentalist or not, our sort of resigned to this solution as the only one that is really possible.

BTW - I WILL not be eating Gulf-water oysters or shellfish for awhile....

[podcastshuffle]

I heard someone from the Sierra Club on public radio today. I don't remember who it was but I think it was one of the directors. He was basically saying that they were disappointed that the dirty water wasing being pumped back into the lake since the lake had been a success story for environmentalists.

Mainly was disappointed that prior to the hurricane the state was getting ready to open some of the beaches for public swimming (guess they were polluted already). He didn't seem critical of the EPA's decision to dump all the sludge though.

I think everybody realizes that you can't wait to filter the water since that would destroy more of New Orleans, harm more people, etc. Also there doesn't seem to be anywhere else to put the dirty water.

Jeff

[Zecryphon]

So... so you have a positive recommendation / solution to throw on the table for discussion or are you just trying to blow off some stream about some "group" you don't particularly like?

I thought when I put links to the news stories I was addressing in my post/thread that people who post in the aforementioned thread would actually click on the links and do a little reading. I can see from your response Jeff that you did not do that. I'm not gonna lie to you, I have issues with the environmental movement, mainly because their solutions for protecting the environment, only protect the environment that animals live in, not human beings.

If you had read the articles I provided links to, you would know that in 1977 the Army Corps of Engineers had a plan in place to build a structure that would have prevented the levees from breaching, and we would not have this huge mess on our hands now. The Corps however was prevented from building that structure due to a lawsuit filed by environementalist groups who were worried about fish and bears and whatever other animals happened to leap to mind.

Now as pointed out by Jimk, to place all the blame on environmental groups is a stretch. But I believe when you go back and do some research you will find that they are largely responsible. My question still remains, why are they so quiet? Unless they were in fact, largely responsible for setting up a scenario that favored the protection of animals and wetlands intead of human beings. I believe they should help pay for the mess they worked so hard to create. Granted this current situation was not their intention, but they've shot themselves in the foot. I can't imagine animals or wetlands faring too well with the current situation.

BTW - I WILL not be eating Gulf-water oysters or shellfish for awhile....

I don't blame you.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[Zecryphon]

The sooner you get New Orleans populated, the quicker these folks will start getting their city, their blocks, their houses, repaired and cleaned up properly. I think people, environmentalist or not, our sort of resigned to this solution as the only one that is really possible.

Do you really think that rebuilding New Orleans is a good idea? Those people live in a bucket basically. The place, as jimk explained, floods constantly, it's supposed to do that. Why would people who have now unfortunately been given the chance to leave, want to return? If you're going to rebuild, do it elsewhere. Don't repeat the same mistake.

I just can't justify paying for something that we all now know is going to fail. The expense is just too great, and I'm not only talking about money here, no more lives should be lost by making the same mistakes all over again. People are not supposed to live there. There's plenty of money and room in this country. We could relocate these people to safer regions, instead of rebuilding a city in a bucket and hoping it won't flood again.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[AaronfromQC]

So here you are talking that crazy nonsense again huh? I thought you'd learn from before that you didn't know what you are talking about but then again, you didn't. Sorry to hear that. But I have to say, I agree with you man. Get rid of the enviromentalists and let business decide what's best for the environment. They've done such a great job so far so why not trust them whole heartedly. Who wants our country to look like Canada, all that beauty is overrated. So man, you are awesome and thanks for bringing this **** up again.

[jeffoest]

I think that some of New Orleans will certainly be built up again. Especially areas such as the French Quarter, St. Charles ave and some of the historic regions that are in the relatively higher parts and where it makes renovation economic sense. Also, there will most likely continue to be major port activity around that area - which is why a city was established at NO in the first place.

Now - will it be as large as a city as it was? That remains to be seen. I suppose it depends on the amount and economic ROI's or rebuilding and also on any modern schemes for better protection if availalble and there is a cost / benefit of doing it. Dunno... stay tuned I suppose.

Living by the river has always been a high risk / high return kind of proposition. I grew up along the Mississippi River (in Illinois). Farmers get the best farmland along the flood plains for the very reason that they flood naturally every few years. On the other hand, every few years those farms are ruined. So does it make sense to completely abandon that land because every few years it floods? Clearly not - since it's the best and most fertive farm land. But the risks are well known and documented and there are ways to work within the restrictions of nature.

As far as blaming the environmentalists. I guess I just think that's kind of an easy blame. Sure, decisions were made that had bad consequences. I truly believe that most people's ambitions regarding those decisions were well intended and not evil. We must learn from them and make smarter pro-active uses of new knowledge and new technolgies to figure out how best to utilize natural geographical assets in the light of environmental concerns and human safety. I truly believe that if smart people can address these problem without pointing large generalalizations at various groups, we can move forward and make better decisions that will benefit all of us.

[Hittman]

We encourage people to build on flood plains by bailing them out every five or seven or ten years they get flooded out. If, instead, we let private insurance deal with it, the free market would solve much of the problem – there wouldn’t be many houses there.

Building a city under sea level might make sense if land is rare, but less than 3% of the land in the US is developed.

I love New Orleans. It’s a very, very cool place, with lots of personality. But the job of keeping it dry shouldn’t belong to the feds – it should belong to the people at risk of getting wet. I don’t blame the feds when my street doesn’t get plowed in the winter – because it’s not their job. Local government takes care of it, and that’s the way it should be. From a purely theoretical standpoint, I don’t think it should be the feds job to keep the levies healthy, and in place.

And from a purely practical standpoint, we have just been handed irrefutable proof that they suck at the job.

There is a lot of blame to go around. Yep, environmentalists should get some. The feds should get quite a bit. The mayor, who seems like a nice guy, was completely incompetent. The governor was worse. Bush was complacent.

Zec, you seem to want to blame this entirely on the tree huggers. While there’s little doubt that they share some of the blame, they are not the only ones at fault, or even the primary culprits.

How about the people who chose to live below sea level? Shouldn’t they have some of the blame too? They put themselves in a known, dangerous situation, just by being there.

I think the best solution will be to get the feds out of it entirely. Finish rescuing the people, get the first layer of sludge cleaned out, and then leave it up to the landowners and insurance companies to fight over what comes next. That’s the best way to get the best cost/risk/reward ratio.

[jimk]

I'd like to see the city go back to being a crescent, where everything stays on high ground and the rest of it becomes what it was; mud. Anyone who wants back has to live in an area that is at or above that of the Quarter.

[Zecryphon]

So here you are talking that crazy nonsense again huh? I thought you'd learn from before that you didn't know what you are talking about but then again, you didn't.

Aaron, if my nonsense as you and Jack like to refer to it is so easily disproved, why not go ahead and do it? Hmmm, maybe because you can't. Yout can't even bring yourself to think about a question. All you can do is get on here and go on a little rant that accomplishes nothing, You disregarded my claims earlier because they were published by media outlets that you don't agree with. So tell us all, what's your problem with the L.A. Times are they not respectable either?

Liberal democrats pass themselves off as the party that cares about people, they're compassionate, they're understanding. All this is true, until you disagree with one. You and Jack prove that over and over again. So keep up the good work. Because you're not fooling anyone.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[Zecryphon]

My question, which no one is really answering is why haven't we heard from the environmentalist movement? I will accept the answer of "I don't know" They continually block the building of structures that will no doubt prevent catastrophes such as this. Are they wholly to blame? No. Everyone had a hand in this disaster. From the lack orf response by city and state officials, people who chose to live there, the federal government.

I mean if this were something much more simple like dumping toxic chemicals into Lake Pontchartrain, they'd be all over the place. But they're not in this particular case. And the question of why still remains. Unless they know something they think we don't know. The problem is some of us do know, that they prevented structures from being built that would prevent this type of disaster.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[jeffoest]

Liberal democrats pass themselves off as the party that cares about people, they're compassionate, they're understanding. All this is true, until you disagree with one. You and Jack prove that over and over again. So keep up the good work. Because you're not fooling anyone.

Not to pick on you (because so many have tendencies to do this) but generalizing again (all "liberal democrats" are like this) just isn't seeking the truth. Even within people in any one political party, there are so many differences among them.

Folks tend to align with a political part (or a religion denomination for that matter) NOT because they agree with each other on every little thing but because they agree with most and they see strength in being part of a larger group to help push those things they care about.

Individually, people are MUCH too complex and varying to put into nice convenient little boxes. Those that do it (and yes, I guess I am pointing a finger here) are simplifying THEIR lives and ideas, but not seeking truth in the much more gray complexities of the human experience.

Just don't do it.

[jimk]

Individually, people are MUCH too complex and varying to put into nice convenient little boxes.

I agree with much of what you said, but would like to add a qualifier here.

MOST people are too complex to be put in a little box. Some, however, are not. Some you can size up in an instant and be assured that in a flash, you can guess 90% of their life's story.

So...in general, I agree, but we've all met the stereotypes. They do exist.

[Zecryphon]

I'm gonna have to keep my opinions and generalizations to myself. I posted a question. Where are the environmentalists? No one seems to know. That's fine, I'm just gonna go back to watching this thread for awhile.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[jeffoest]

Sorry Z... , actually I don't think I may be following you here. What is the outstanding question you are looking for the environmentalists to answer?

I thought you were wondering why other cleaner alternatives for getting the water out of NO weren't being proposed by environmental groups. I think a couple of did respond to that one: namely there doesn't seem to be a lot of other practical solutions available beyond pumping it out the Lake P. or other solutions WOULD indeed be being discussed.

However, now I'm thinking that wasn't the question you were aking..

And Jim... Yeah I suppose you are right, there are people that just sheepishly go along with every tenet in their chosen political part or religious demonination. I don't find those people as interesting or useful as far as conversing and learning from them, so I usually don't even think of them! lol

[Zecryphon]

No Jeff, I'm looking for a reaction from the environmentalists. So far I haven't seen one. The title of this thread is Where is the outcry... I said nothing about cleanup efforts.

Hurricane Katrina is an environmental disaster of epic proportions. No one can argue that. Some have called it Armageddon, that's just a gross misuse of that word. I doubt the majority of people even know when Armageddon will happen or where it even is. Hittman, you are excluded from this group because I'm sure you learned it in your years as a fundy. And people who don't want to discuss this issue will go off on some Armageddon tangent now, I suppose.

The point is, when the Exxon oil spill happened, I remember tons of media coverage of people holding up the bodies of oil covered animals, shaking their heads, saying "why did this have to happen? When will people learn? We're destroying the planet" so on and so on. It may be just me, but I haven't seen anything like that with this disaster. But the reson for that is obvious. It's a little different to hold up a dead duck as opposed to holding up a bloated human corpse. The image of the human being is much more shocking, and it would be akin to violating a burial ground in a sense. My question is, why haven't we heard any kind of response to the environmental damage caused by hurricane Katrina. Not the clean up efforts, not what to do with the sludge not where to pump the water. None of that, the environmental impact of the hurricane itself. That's what I'm after. I don't know how much more simple I can make it.

It's been my contention that the reason we haven't is because the environmental groups have filed lawsuits in the past to stop the building of structures that would have helped prevent this disaster from ever happening. Now they should feel partially guilty, but I'm not sure they do. They've taken no responsibility and are blaming the ecological policies of the president as the cause of this tragedy, hoping no one finds out about their lawsuits. Again, I'm not saying it's ALL their fault, but they definitely played a role in it.

The lawsuits that have been filed are on record you can go find them and read them. They're not figments of my imagination or a right wing conspiracy. They're a matter of historical record. A record that no one wants to seem to look at. A simple Google search will give you a ton of links. Just go to www.google.com and type in Environmental Lawsuit New Orleans Levees.

You will find pages and pages of links. I don't know that anyone has read the articles I've provided links to in previous threads, maybe you don't have the time. Then do a quick Google search and read something. I've seen Aaron telling me I'm spewing nonsense again, but he has yet to disprove anything I've said. Hell, I could say alot of the stuff I read on here is nonsense too. But it doesn't disprove what they're saying, all it does is show that I'm avoiding the question.

YBIC,

Zecryphon

[Hittman]

I’ve never, ever seen “experts� apologize for errors in their judgments or actions, no matter how obvious or grievous. The only time they address it is when they lie about it.

One that comes to mind was the elimination of the 55 MPH speed limit. The media was awash in “experts� all spewing the same number – “This will cause 5,000 additional highway deaths per year.� We heard that over and over and over again. I tried to find the source, but couldn’t. It was nothing more than a number someone pulled out of their ***, and then other experts sniffed it, pronounced it good, and it became a “fact,� by nature of being spewed more than any other number. A year later, when the stats were in and the number of fatalities per mile went down, no one, not one single expert, came forth and said “we were wrong.� They were off pontificating about something else.

The only exception to this behavior is when they lie. For instance, smoking bans destroy many businesses, completely devastates them. How do the nicotine nannies respond? By lying. Barefaced, outright, bold and confidently told lies. Numbers that are twisted and contoured and quite often simply made up. The Big Lie repeated over and over and over again until the sheeple nod in agreement.

So don’t despair that the ecologists who were partially responsible for this are silent. If they did speak out, it would be nothing more than lies and doublespeak.

[roadrageradio]

It's been my contention that the reason we haven't is because the environmental groups have filed lawsuits in the past to stop the building of structures that would have helped prevent this disaster from ever happening. Now they should feel partially guilty, but I'm not sure they do. They've taken no responsibility and are blaming the ecological policies of the president as the cause of this tragedy, hoping no one finds out about their lawsuits. Again, I'm not saying it's ALL their fault, but they definitely played a role in it.

The lawsuits that have been filed are on record you can go find them and read them. They're not figments of my imagination or a right wing conspiracy. They're a matter of historical record. A record that no one wants to seem to look at. A simple Google search will give you a ton of links. Just go to www.google.com and type in Environmental Lawsuit New Orleans Levees.


YBIC,

Zecryphon

Z,

So, you think it's people filing LAWSUITS that caused the pollution, and not maybe the hundreds of petrochemical plants all around the Mississippi River Delta?

Everybody knows that floodwalls aren't the real answer to controlling a flood. All they do is move the water to the next weakest point so that some other poor slob has the flood.

And, by the way, no environmental lawsuit was as effective in stopping the Corps of Engineers as was the Bush Administration draining their budget.

The real answer to flood control is restoring the wetlands, which have been systematically destroyed and paved by the relentless march of progress. Wetlands absorb flood waters and protect the higher, dryer land behind them. That was the Plan, anyway, but man knew better.

Another reason this flood was so bad is that we've been straightening the channel of the Mississippi River for a hundred years. It makes shipper easier and cheaper, but it also cuts down on the natural formation of the Delta by silt deposition. The Delta acts like a natural barrier, another part of the Plan, but man knew better.

So, if you want to know why "the environmentalists" (whoever they are) aren't speaking out right now, I offer two possible reasons:

1 - they're too busy helping the survivors, instead of telling them how lucky they are, like Barbara Bush and Tom Delay did. Or blaming them, like all the RWTR shows are doing.

2 - All they could say is "WE TOLD YOU SO!"

YNMB

[obtuseangle]

My question, which no one is really answering is why haven't we heard from the environmentalist movement?

I'm going to jump in here and attempt to answer your question, even though you've already answered it yourself. I think you're wrong, by the way -- it seems highly unlikely to me that groups like the Sierra Club are covering their asses for decisions that were made in 1977. But you're on the right track, in terms of the reason being intricately tied to public relations.

Environmental groups are generally a shrewd bunch when it comes to PR (otherwise they wouldn't get funding and therefore wouldn't exist at all), but it doesn't take a PR mastermind to figure out that the death, destruction and human suffering caused by Katrina vastly outweighs any environmental concerns. I think we've already established that there's no viable solution for treating the floodwater before pumping it out of the city, so why would the environmental groups waste their time on the issue when they'd just come off looking like insensitive *****les with backward priorities?

You sound like a smart guy, so I think you already know all this and have just been playing devil's advocate to reinforce your own opinions/prejudices about the environmental movement.

Cheers,

Steve
The Obtuse Angle
http://stevedupont.com

[Zecryphon]

[quote=Zecryphon]

It's been my contention that the reason we haven't is because the environmental groups have filed lawsuits in the past to stop the building of structures that would have helped prevent this disaster from ever happening. Now they should feel partially guilty, but I'm not sure they do. They've taken no responsibility and are blaming the ecological policies of the president as the cause of this tragedy, hoping no one finds out about their lawsuits. Again, I'm not saying it's ALL their fault, but they definitely played a role in it.

The lawsuits that have been filed are on record you can go find them and read them. They're not figments of my imagination or a right wing conspiracy. They're a matter of historical record. A record that no one wants to seem to look at. A simple Google search will give you a ton of links. Just go to www.google.com and type in Environmental Lawsuit New Orleans Levees.


YBIC,

Zecryphon

Z,

So, you think it's people filing LAWSUITS that caused the pollution, and not maybe the hundreds of petrochemical plants all around the Mississippi River Delta?

No I think it's lawsuits that prevent structures from being built in the first place. Structures that could handle the floodwaters, or reroute them to other poor slobs as you so sensitively put it.

And, by the way, no environmental lawsuit was as effective in stopping the Corps of Engineers as was the Bush Administration draining their budget.

Do you have some proof of this? I addressed this point in a previous thread entitled Bush: Liberator or Liar, but that thread has mysteriously disapperared. Anyway, it is true Bush cut funding to the Corps of Engineers. But in 1997 the Corps had to halt reinforcing the levees as the result of a lawsuit filed by none other than the Sierra Club. They said doing that kind of work would destroy the wetlands and wipeout the black bears. I suggest you take a good look at who and what's been wiped out now. Do a Google search for Greens v. Levees and read for yourself.

The real solution to the problem now, is get everyone out of their, relocate them to higher ground and let nature work the way it's supposed to.



All they could say is "WE TOLD YOU SO!"

Do you have any proof of this? Or should we all just believe you, because you say so.

YBIC,

Zecryphon

[roadrageradio]

The real solution to the problem now, is get everyone out of their, relocate them to higher ground and let nature work the way it's supposed to.

And your proof of this is???

Actually, it's not a bad idea if it could work. Leave it to the pelicans and 'gators and let Ol' Man River sort it out. In a hundred years, we might have back what we had a hundred years ago.

Of course, the third busiest port in the US would have to be shut down, along with a third of our petrochemical production. And you'd have to force half a million people to move permanently.

That's pretty bold stuff, even for an environmentalist. I can't see a small government conservative favoring that.


Proof ----

The FEMA - LSU simulation, Hurricane Pam, in 2004 predicted the extent of the storm damage for a category 3 storm. It predicted the levees failing, the flooding, the devastation -- pretty much everything that happened. There's an LSU professor who could tell you all about it.

As a result of that study, it was decided that more preparation was needed, but FEMA's budget was cut (again) and they didn't revise the plan.

Mike Parker, former Republican congressman from Mississippi, and strong advocate of water control projects was fired from his job with the Corp of Engineers for complaining in public that the funding wasn't adequate to do the work that was needed. You can Google him if you like.

National Geographic ran a compreshensive article last year on the water problems of the Delta. The title is "Gone with the Water". It's in the October 2004 issue.

The New Orleans Times Picayune newspaper has done an extensive job of documenting the desperate state of flood control projects in the region over the past three years.

[jimk]

I just want to address this budget myth.

The budget was not CUT. The INCREASE was REDUCED. A fact that the left is either ignoring or trying to hide is that Bush has funded the LA levee system with more dollars than any other area in the nation.

Let me cut you off before you respond: No, Bush did not handle this well. FEMA , once it was reasonable to go in, screwed up at every turn, and that is teh fault of teh bungling manager Bush hired as a political favor.. However...I'm talking EXPLICITLY about the budget lie the left is spreading. I'm not addressing any otehr issues, so save your outrage.

There is a huge difference between cutting a budget and reducing an increase. It'd be nice if people told the truth when discussing this kind of stuff.

[Zecryphon]

There is a huge difference between cutting a budget and reducing an increase. It'd be nice if people told the truth when discussing this kind of stuff.

Aw, Jim I thought you'd have heard by now, truth is no longer absolute for people. It's become merely relative. Each person decides for themselves what is true.

But seriously, I'm glad I posted this thread. It's interesting for me to find out what people believe and think.

YBIC,

Zecryphon

[Zecryphon]

And your proof of this is???

I just thought that the destruction we're currently witnessing would say something about how it's no longer wise to reside there if you don't absolutely have to. I think it's fair to say that all efforts to fight Mother Nature have failed. Human beings no matter how well intentioned, or prepared just can't measure up to forces that have been at work on this planet long before we were ever here.

I'm glad to see my idea wasn't dismissed as completely laughable. So how about a compromise? You can keep the port and the chemical plants. Let's just move the residents who don't need to be there anymore, out of there.

Also, I believe I ran across the person from LSU you are talking about. I believe he was mentioned in the L.A. Times article I provided a link to on page 1 of this thread. As for the other person I guess it's probably a good idea to Google him.

YBIC,

Zecryphon

[roadrageradio]

I'm gonna have to keep my opinions and generalizations to myself. I posted a question. Where are the environmentalists? No one seems to know. That's fine, I'm just gonna go back to watching this thread for awhile.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

Z,

Thanks for challenging me to find proof that te Bush budget cuts had more impact on the failure to finish the levee project than any environmental group.

Here's the proof:

The Sept. 8 issue of National Review Online that chastised the Sierra Club and other environmental groups for suing to halt the corps' 1996 plan to raise and fortify 303 miles of Mississippi River levees in Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas.

The corps settled the litigation in 1997, agreeing to hold off on some work until an environmental impact could be completed. The National Review article concluded: "Whether this delay directly affected the levees that broke in New Orleans is difficult to ascertain."

The problem with that conclusion?

The levees that broke causing New Orleans to flood weren't Mississippi River levees. They were levees that protected the city from Lake Pontchartrain levees on the other side of the city.

I'll summarize this for you.

1. The entire basis for blaming environmentalists was an NRO piece that doesn't even say the lawsuit could be blamed.

2. The lawsuit was settled in 1997. The Corps was prevented from finishing levee work in 2002 - 2004 by lack of funds, not a five year old settled lawsuit.

3. The lawsuit didn't cover the levees that failed during Katrina.

Conclusion:
Another desperate right wing smokescreen blown to hell.
Another Bush rumpswab exposed to the light of day.

[jimk]

Except the levees that failed? They were completed.

Another desperate lefty myth blown to hell. Or some such nonsense.

[roadrageradio]

Except the levees that failed? They were completed.

Another desperate lefty myth blown to hell. Or some such nonsense.

Very cute. Can you try being original? Or on point?

We were talking about the myth that environmentalists caused the levees to fail.

They didn't. Neither did the Corps. Neither did the President, although he seems to be the only person who didn't think they might fail.

The levees were designed for a Category 3 event, and Katrina was a strong Category 4. The levees weren't strong enough, and we lost a city, making it two cities that have suffered preventable catastrophic losses in less than five years under this President's watch.

I'm surprised you're not blaming Clinton.

[jimk]

Except the levees that failed? They were completed.

Another desperate lefty myth blown to hell. Or some such nonsense.

Very cute. Can you try being original? Or on point?

We were talking about the myth that environmentalists caused the levees to fail.

They didn't. Neither did the Corps. Neither did the President, although he seems to be the only person who didn't think they might fail.

The levees were designed for a Category 3 event, and Katrina was a strong Category 4. The levees weren't strong enough, and we lost a city, making it two cities that have suffered preventable catastrophic losses in less than five years under this President's watch.

I'm surprised you're not blaming Clinton.

Why would I blame Clinton any more than Bush? Neither of them had fark-all to do with it.

See, the system was designed in 1965.

You'd do well to fully research the whole scenario before pronouncing yourself as grand pubaah expert, kiddo. There's a LOT going on here, from local corruption scandals to now defunct companies submitting fraudulent studies to various lawsuits to budget cuts over the last 30 years to the Corps themselves saying that with 30 more years and a billion dollars they could not have stopped this flood.

There's so much noise surrounding this issue that trying to pin it on one person makes you look...well, purely ignorant, really.

[Hittman]

Aw, Jim I thought you'd have heard by now, truth is no longer absolute for people. It's become merely relative. Each person decides for themselves what is true.

Truth has never been anywhere near absolute. For instance, I know from past conversations that your “truth� on the origin of man are absolute nonsense to anyone using the scientific method. Likewise, the scientific method is nonsense to someone from your point of view. Your truth and my truth are opposite from each other.

That’s why I prefer facts. Give me facts, lots and lots of hard core, real, verifiable facts, and I can figure out the truth for myself.

Now we’re told that the US is ready to spend 200 billion to rebuild the city. Dumb dumb dumb dumb.

[podcastshuffle]

We encourage people to build on flood plains by bailing them out every five or seven or ten years they get flooded out. If, instead, we let private insurance deal with it, the free market would solve much of the problem – there wouldn’t be many houses there.

I was watching John Stossel on O'Relilly (I think that's where it was) the other night and he was talking about how he purposely built a beach house where he knew it ran the chance of being destroyed. He bought flood insurance and sure enough eventually a hurricane came to destroy the house and he collected the maximum $250,000 dollar insurance and built again.

You can read about it here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Insurance/story?id=94181

[jeffoest]

That’s why I prefer facts. Give me facts, lots and lots of hard core, real, verifiable facts, and I can figure out the truth for myself.

Well, I suppose it depends on your definition of the word 'Truth'. Not to be picky, but even armed with real, verifiable facts, all you can usually do (if you follow the scientific method - which is pretty darn good and useful) is derive a hypothesus or theory from those facts. This hypothesus or theory is only your guess and is based on your intelligence, your analytical reason, and your background. Depending on who is deriving the hypothesus, it could be total crap or totally brilliant.

BUT when we put our scientist hat on and we have the resources, we run tests to test that hypothesus. And even then, the best we can do statistically (if we have enough data) is to prove that the best data available does not DISPROVE the theory within a certain level of confidence.

Scientists often times, with enough of these tests, admit the hypothesus is correct based on the inability to disprove it over a series of well-constructed tests. But it is important to realize that most theories are never proven. They are simply unable to be disproven. That's the scientific method.

And, the bigger point - and the interesting one, is that this is probably why we often disagree on thnigs even if given the same access to the same facts. We are limited by both our own analytical reasoning to form a cohesive conclusion and we are limited in ability to either perform the necessary tests or our ability to understand the conclusions correctly.

The media does not help us!

[Zecryphon]

For instance, I know from past conversations that your “truth� on the origin of man are absolute nonsense to anyone using the scientific method. Likewise, the scientific method is nonsense to someone from your point of view.

I don't know why you'd bring up our past "conversations" on my views of the origin of man, it has no bearing on this thread. My point was something that was once viewed as absolute by people, not neccessarily you, has now become relative. When did it happen? If I share what I believe to be true, I'm suddenly forcing my views on someone? Why can't I just be sharing an opinoin? Oh no no no. Seems you can't say anything these days, without someone crying "Leave me alone. Don't force your views on me."

As far as my "truth" goes, we'll find out who is right when we die. I'm still betting it's God though. Also, as stated in past threads I have no problem with science; and I do not dismiss what they say as nonsense. I've said over and over again, that religion and science can work together. Which goes alot further towards people of both viewpoints understanding each other than just picking one side and saying "I'm right, you're wrong. Deal with it."

Now we’re told that the US is ready to spend 200 billion to rebuild the city. Dumb dumb dumb dumb.

I agree, which is why I haven't given any money to relief efforts. I don't think it's wise for people to live there. I suppose this would be an example of tough love.

I do ask myself, "what's keeping them there?" They now have the opportunity to live elsewhere. A place where there are no danger of floods, or hurricanes wiping out what they're going to build next. I have a hard time feeling sorry for people who insist on living on fault lines, in tornado alley and in hurricane prone zones. What's really so bad about living in places free of those disasters. It's not like we don't know where they occur and where they don't. They're easily avoided.

YBIC,

Zecryphon

[Hittman]

Shuffle, I saw that interview. I love Stossell, I think he’s one of the very few honest reporters out there. Of course, that’s because his truth and mine coincide.

The media does not help us!

It’s worse than that. They actually hurt us. The usually present only the extremes, completely ignoring any reasonable, middle of the road solution. They also present things that are not the least bit controversial as if they are. For instance, there is NO disagreement in the science community that evolution is a fact. Yet, the media presents us with panels with creationists on one side and scientists on the other side and make it look like there’s a big debate still going on. This causes real damage – proponents of ID are making headway teaching mythology as science in our schools.

Zep, I wasn’t trying to bring re-start the debate, just using it as an example that you and I have our version of The Truth, which we are each certain of, and they are completely opposite from each other. My point is that while most people think truth is an absolute, it isn’t. The only absolute is facts, and given enough facts, we can figure out our own personal truth for ourselves. Another example: My wife is beautiful. That’s the truth. If you disagree, does that make you a liar?

Bottom line: Truth is subjective. Very subjective. Facts ain’t. And when someone claims to have The Truth (and you can hear the capital letters when they say it) my bullshit meter goes to 11 and I put my hand on my wallet and slowly back away .

I do ask myself, "what's keeping them there?" They now have the opportunity to live elsewhere.

Have you ever been to New Orleans? Every city has it’s own personality, and New Orleans has three times as much personality of just about any other place. It’s just amazing, the culture, the music, the food, the beliefs, the architecture, the history, the heat, the food, the booze, the corruption, the tits, the party, the color, the music, the food, etc. (The music and food deserve to be mentioned several times.) People fall in love with places, and N.O. is an easy place to love.

But there are upsides and downsides to living anywhere, and I don’t think we should subsidize people who make risky decisions, whether it’s living below sea level, living on a flood plain, living in a trailer in tornado country, or building a beach house where you know it’s going to be knocked down. Private insurance should be able to handle the risk, and if they won’t, that’s not a sign that the government should provide it. It’s a sign that you’re living in a dangerous place. If you’re willing to assume that risk, then fine, but the US taxpayers shouldn’t be expected to bail you out when Murphy comes knocking.

[Zecryphon]

I agree with you, we should let the private insurance companies handle it. But take a look at those people. Do you really think they have ANY insurance? The culture, flavor and appeal of New Orleans is not locked in to that geographical location. Take all those people out of there, put them somewhere else, and I guarantee the culture that makes New Orleans so enticing, will follow.

As for your wife being beautiful, that is not a fact, but merely your opinion. If anything can be classified as subjective, it's beauty. What is beautiful to you, may not be beautiful to me. Beauty and love are not things that can be recreated in a laboratory. These are things that are dealt with by the heart and in emotions. There is nothing scientific about it.

You have in the past, been accused of passing off your opinions as fact. Here you are doing it again. This time using your wife to back up your claims. You can hold on to your "facts" until the day you die, when that day comes certain absolute truths are going to come into play. After you die, you are no longer in control of what happens to you. The Creator gets to His turn to play, in the game that He created. Whether or not it's the God I believe in, or that little pink unicorn you believe in, remains to be seen. But He will play, and you and I and everyone else will have no choice but to obey the rules.

YBIC,

Zecryphon

[Zecryphon]

I agree with you, we should let the private insurance companies handle it. But take a look at those people. Do you really think they have ANY insurance? The culture, flavor and appeal of New Orleans is not locked in to that geographical location. Take all those people out of there, put them somewhere else, and I guarantee the culture that makes New Orleans so enticing, will follow.

As for your wife being beautiful, that is not a fact, but merely your opinion. If anything can be classified as subjective, it's beauty. What is beautiful to you, may not be beautiful to me. Beauty and love are not things that can be recreated in a laboratory. These are things that are dealt with by the heart and in emotions. There is nothing scientific about them.

You have in the past, been accused of passing off your opinions as fact. Here you are doing it again. This time using your wife to back up your claims. You can hold on to your "facts" until the day you die. When that day comes, certain absolute truths are going to come into play. After you die, you are no longer in control of what happens to you. The Creator gets His turn to play, in the game that He created. Whether or not it's the God I believe in, or that little pink unicorn you believe in, remains to be seen. But He will play, and you and I and everyone else will have no choice but to obey the rules.

YBIC,

Zecryphon

[mental-escher]

jeffoest wrote: derive a hypothesus or theory from those facts

That would be a "Hypothesis", not a hippopotamus (ie, "hypothesus")... us scientists are a nit-picky lot.

http://marie49125.typepad.com/photos/boris_le_stagiaire_qu_une/hippopotamus_amphibius_im01.jpg

[jeffoest]

DRAT! I knew something looked wrong with that word....

Wait, a minute. How do you KNOW I didn't mean hippopotamus...

[Hittman]

The culture, flavor and appeal of New Orleans is not locked in to that geographical location. Take all those people out of there, put them somewhere else, and I guarantee the culture that makes New Orleans so enticing, will follow.

Impossible.

If you take the seeds from a Vidalia onion and grow it in New York State, you will grow a tasty onion, but it will not have the texture and flavor of one grown in Georgia. In fact, it can only be grown in a few counties and still be a Vidalia onion.

If you take sheep’s milk, mix it with moldy rye bread, and cure it in a cave, it might make a tasty cheese, but it won’t be anything like Roquefort. That has to be aged in specific caves, using only sheep’s milk from specific regions of France. Nothing else works. Many very taltented experts have tried to recreate it. They have all failed.

Most premium cigars are made with Cuban seed tobacco. They’re fine cigars, but they ain’t Cubans, not by a long shot. You might think a different island, with the same climate and in the same latitude, could produce the same tasting tobacco. They can’t. Cuban cigars are prized for a number of unique qualities, most notably their flavor and the texture of the smoke. Dominicans very different from Cubans, and Jamaicans are different still. Honduran Cigars are a different beast, and noticeably different from Nicaragians. Mexicans are just horrible. Many talented experts have tried to duplicate Cubans. They have all failed.

And that’s just for organic products. People are infinitely more complex, and are profoundly affected by everything in their environment. Even if you could move all the people into a different place, all near each other, the culture wouldn’t survive more than a generation or two.

Take the music, for instance. Why is Cajun music and New Orleans Jazz so unique? Because the ever-present oppressive heat requires seriously bouncy, lively music to get your feet moving. Acoustic instruments don’t fare too well in high humidity, but brass does just fine. Pianos warp, accordions don’t. Chicago, with a different climate and culture, has a very different style of Jazz. New York is different still. Take the musicians out of the heat, and their music will change.

Motown could only be done in Detroit. If it were done anywhere else it would sound very different. Philly Soul could only come from Philadelphia. Southern Rock could only be created by rock loving musicians who grew up in the south. And the Beach Boys would have sounded very, very different if they lived and recorded in Utah.

Consider the food. Spicy foods are more common in poorer cultures, because it takes less to satisfy you. Cajun food uses what’s available locally. Move the Cajuns to some place where the economy is better, and where crawfish and catfish and okra and shrimp and crabs aren’t common, (and therefore inexpensive) and their diet will change. It won’t be Cajun any more.

If it were possible to recreate the feel of cities and cultures, the ersatz attempts at Disney World and Las Vegas casinos would feel authentic, instead if just interesting cheap imitations.

Whenever I’m in a new city, I like to walk around and absorb the vibe of the place. Chicago feels very different from New York, even though they’re both large port cities. Boston has a style and a feel all it’s own. Atlanta has a charm that’s different from any other. Denver is very different from Boulder, which is a short drive away. Even similar climate and geography produce vastly different cultures. Albany and Saratoga, which are a mere thirty miles from each other, in the same state, are nothing like each other. Compare the upper peninsula of Michigan with Maine. You’d never confuse a New Englander with a Yooper.

And New Orleans – there just isn’t anything like it. You can’t recreate it elsewhere. It just wouldn’t work.

I’ve always been very interested in the way climate and geography affects culture, but have never seen any serious study on it. If anyone knows of any, please enlighten me.

As for your wife being beautiful, that is not a fact, but merely your opinion.

Exactly. But it’s one of my truths. Now, I could quote experts, other people who look at a picture and agree, but that wouldn’t make it any more or less true. And while most of my opinions are fact based, this one is an emotional and subjective one. But is no less true, to me, than something I’ve done extensive research on.

BTW, nobody believes in the IPU, it’s just such a handy rhetorical device that freethinkers use it quite a bit. Probably a bit too much, but it’s just too much fun to let go.

[Zecryphon]

Dave, make up your mind. Do you think they should live there or not? I don't. If they rebuild a city that is located below sea level, they are setting themselves up for the same type of disaster that has now befallen them. On this point we seem to agree. We also seem to agree to let the private insurance companies handle it, but the only problem with that scenario is that most of these people probably don't have insurance.

So are we going to keep letting them make the same mistakes over and over again? Or are we going to say, "take this money and put it to some good use. You are now going to live elsewhere, for your own safety." We can't afford to keep bailing them out. If they do insist on returning, perhaps they should sign a document stating that they know the risks, and they will personally accept the consequences of this decision of theirs to return.

YBIC,

Zecryphon

[Hittman]

Dave, make up your mind. Do you think they should live there or not?

Not being religious, I’m don’t consider myself qualified to tell other people how to live. I make my own decisions, and let them make theirs.

I don't. If they rebuild a city that is located below sea level, they are setting themselves up for the same type of disaster that has now befallen them. On this point we seem to agree. We also seem to agree to let the private insurance companies handle it, but the only problem with that scenario is that most of these people probably don't have insurance.

That’s not my problem. At least, it shouldn’t be – when Big Brother says “we’ll cover you anyway� it is, literally, money out of my pocket. About $2400, to be exact, if they fund it at the level they’re discussing. ($600 per taxpayer, times four adults.)

So are we going to keep letting them make the same mistakes over and over again? Or are we going to say, "take this money and put it to some good use. You are now going to live elsewhere, for your own safety."

If you’re going to be an authoritarian prig you can take the latter approach, but me, I’d rather let people make their own decisions, and decide on what level of risk they’re comfortable with, as long as I’m not expected to pay for it. The government doing things “for your own safety� is one of the things that has destroyed freedom in this country.

We can't afford to keep bailing them out. If they do insist on returning, perhaps they should sign a document stating that they know the risks, and they will personally accept the consequences of this decision of theirs to return.

That’s fine. But of course when it happens again, and it will, we can expect the vote grabbing congress weasels to ignore any such document.

[Zecryphon]

Not being religious, I’m don’t consider myself qualified to tell other people how to live. I make my own decisions, and let them make theirs.

Great way to avoid the question, you'd make a hell of a politician.

I don't. If they rebuild a city that is located below sea level, they are setting themselves up for the same type of disaster that has now befallen them. On this point we seem to agree. We also seem to agree to let the private insurance companies handle it, but the only problem with that scenario is that most of these people probably don't have insurance.

That’s not my problem. At least, it shouldn’t be – when Big Brother says “we’ll cover you anyway� it is, literally, money out of my pocket. About $2400, to be exact, if they fund it at the level they’re discussing. ($600 per taxpayer, times four adults.)

You say it's not your problem, then in the next sentence admit that it is? You should just say "I shouldn't have to pay for other people's mistakes". Which is true, you shouldn't have to, but you're going to. So since you're going to pay for it, don't you think you should have a say as to how the money would best be spent? If you think that telling them to leave an unsafe area is bad that's fine. But don't complain when New Orleans gets rebuilt, wiped out again, and you're expected to foot the bill.

So are we going to keep letting them make the same mistakes over and over again? Or are we going to say, "take this money and put it to some good use. You are now going to live elsewhere, for your own safety."

If you’re going to be an authoritarian prig you can take the latter approach, but me, I’d rather let people make their own decisions, and decide on what level of risk they’re comfortable with, as long as I’m not expected to pay for it. The government doing things “for your own safety� is one of the things that has destroyed freedom in this country.

I'm sorry to hear that you're so unhappy with this country. Living here has worked out pretty well for me. For all the whining you do about how bad it is here, what have you done to change it? I mean if you spent half the time writing your elected leaders in office, letting them know what you think, as you do posting on these boards you could probably get alot done in the way of getting this country back to the way you think it should be.


YBIC,

Zecryphon

[Hittman]

Not being religious, I’m don’t consider myself qualified to tell other people how to live. I make my own decisions, and let them make theirs.

Great way to avoid the question, you'd make a hell of a politician.

No evasion. (When I evade a question, you’ll know it.) I wouldn’t live there, especially in the below sea level areas, because I’m not comfortable with that level of risk. Also, it’s too **** hot there for me. But that’s me. I honestly don’t think it’s up to me, or you, or Big Brother, to tell people where they can or can not live. However, if they choose to live in a risky place, then I don’t think BB should be baling them out, either.

You’re right, the problem is we will be forced, at the point of a gun, to pay for it. That’s just one more right we’ve kissed goodbye. But that still doesn’t mean we should give BB more power, telling people where to live.

When I see what this country has become, compared to what it has been, and especially compared to what it was supposed to be, I’m grief stricken. We are not a free country any longer. We can no longer own private property. Just before taking that away from us, the Supremes ruled that the feds can regulate anything they want, under the interstate commerce clause, even if nothing crosses state lines and there’s no commerce involved. We work nearly half our lives for the government. Many of us will retire in poverty because of being forced into a government funded ponzi scheme. We have a higher percentage of our population in prison than any other country in the world, and most of them are there for non-violent “crimes.� I can’t have a smoke in a ****ing bar, for chrissake. We are subject to random searches at the whim of any bubba with a badge. Every amendment in the BOR is being systematically shredded, except the first, so the only right left is the right to bitch about things. We have no say in what happens in our government. We become less free with each passing day. And there’s not a **** thing we can do about it.

I used to write to congress weasels, but quit after receiving numerous canned replies, and watching them vote for whatever special interest was lining their pocket this year, it was obvious that they didn’t really bother with any letters without checks enclosed. Big checks. If I thought it would make the tiniest bit of difference, I’d continue, but it’s just a waste of time.

We will be Singapore soon. The cameras and RFID chips and national ID cards are either in place, or on their way. And with the rest of the world aping the US, there’s no place to run.

So I’m doing the only thing I can – trying to laugh about it all, and give other people a few laughs along the way, as we swirl the drain faster and faster.