-----" Hole In The Ground " -------

Bathgate66

Did anyone catch the New Orleans mayors choice of words concerning critics who questioned him on how long its taking to repair New Orleans ?
When questioned by a NY reporter- he said something to the effect of " You guys from NY have a huge hole in the ground for 5 years now and cant fix that... "


Being a NYer- ( we all even call it " the pit " ) and some of his ideas have a grain of merrit , it was definitely a bad choice of words and shows his lack of diplomatic skills .

farfromglorified

Bathgate66 wrote:

Did anyone catch the New Orleans mayors choice of words concerning critics who questioned him on how long its taking to repair New Orleans ?
When questioned by a NY reporter- he said something to the effect of " You guys from NY have a huge hole in the ground for 5 years now and cant fix that... "


Being a NYer- ( we all even call it " the pit " ) and some of his ideas have a grain of merrit , it was definitely a bad choice of words and shows his lack of diplomatic skills .

Ray Nagin is the last person you want to ask about fixing New Orleans, and the first person you want to ask about destroying it.

RainDog

Ah, good ol' C. Ray Nagin. I'll say this about him - unlike most politicians, you always know exactly what's on his mind.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Ray Nagin is the last person you want to ask about fixing New Orleans, and the first person you want to ask about destroying it.

While I think the first half of your sentence carries some weight, the second half is reaching. The Army Corp of Engineers openly admitted that they were the ones at fault for the levee breeches.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

While I think the first half of your sentence carries some weight, the second half is reaching. The Army Corp of Engineers openly admitted that they were the ones at fault for the levee breeches.

The Army Corp of Engineers made no guarantees that the levees would withstand the forces of a hurricane. In fact, they released numerous reports over the years that largely predicted the events that followed Katrina. The levees were not adequately designed nor funded to withstand the worst that nature could throw at them.

The ignorance of the general public to those facts and the willful denial of public official to accept those facts are what caused the suffering New Orleans. Since it appears that New Orleans is going to begin anew at that same location, I can only hope the lesson has been learned. So far, that doesn't appear to be the case.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

The Army Corp of Engineers made no guarantees that the levees would withstand the forces of a hurricane. In fact, they released numerous reports over the years that largely predicted the events that followed Katrina. The levees were not adequately designed nor funded to withstand the worst that nature could throw at them.

The ignorance of the general public to those facts and the willful denial of public official to accept those facts are what caused the suffering New Orleans. Since it appears that New Orleans is going to begin anew at that same location, I can only hope the lesson has been learned. So far, that doesn't appear to be the case.

You're right that they weren't adequetly funded or built - that's why the Army Corp of Engineers accepted blame - they're the organization that designed and built them.

"The ignorance" also seems to involve people believing that Nagin himself designed them, or even has final say over how they're maintained. Or, that they all fall under his jurisdiction in the first place. They don't. The words "New Orleans" are often used as a substitute for the entire area - suburbs and other municipalities included. If you like, I'll openly complain about where I think Nagin is failing in the post-storm city. But to put the levee failure square on his shoulders is as valid as the conspiracy theorys about the levees being blown up to save the rich folks.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

You're right that they weren't adequetly funded or built - that's why the Army Corp of Engineers accepted blame - they're the organization that designed and built them.

Certainly! But they weren't designed or built to withstand such a storm, so I don't really see why I should blame them for it. If I leave my convertible out in the rain and it fills up with water, should I blame Porsche?

"The ignorance" also seems to involve people believing that Nagin himself designed them, or even has final say over how they're maintained.

Agreed. I'm not suggesting that Ray Nagin should be out there rebuilding levees, nor am I saying that he should have even fixed the old ones. I am suggesting that Ray Nagin should have known that those levees were going to fail in a serious storm and should have understood his responsibility to have a plan for such an event.

Or, that they all fall under his jurisdiction in the first place. They don't. The words "New Orleans" are often used as a substitute for the entire area - suburbs and other municipalities included. If you like, I'll openly complain about where I think Nagin is failing in the post-storm city. But to put the levee failure square on his shoulders is as valid as the conspiracy theorys about the levees being blown up to save the rich folks.

Agreed. But you're the one who brought up the levees, not me.

even flow?

farfromglorified wrote:

Certainly! But they weren't designed or built to withstand such a storm, so I don't really see why I should blame them for it. If I leave my convertible out in the rain and it fills up with water, should I blame Porsche?

How about if your Porsche outright leaks with a metal body? You have got to be kidding me about this. It would make sense to build things that will withstand the weather. Not blame a mayor after the fact. But the twin towers were built to withstand airplanes hitting them. Queue up the excuse just not that type of plane. Not the fact that the president had fair warning. Actually now I see what you are saying. Makes perfect sense.

farfromglorified

even flow? wrote:

How about if your Porsche outright leaks with a metal body?

Then I'll blame Porsche, because what they're selling me carries a promise to not fail in such a way.

You have got to be kidding me about this. It would make sense to build things that will withstand the weather. Not blame a mayor after the fact.

I'm not blaming the mayor for the levees breaking. I'm blaming the mayor for ignoring the warnings that the levees would break given to him by the people who built them and for failing to plan accordingly.

But the twin towers were built to withstand airplanes hitting them.

No. They were built to withstand small aircraft hitting them, not passenger jets.

Queue up the excuse just not that type of plane.

Yes, except it's not an "excuse", it's a fact.

Not the fact that the president had fair warning.

Fair warning of what? Katrina? Yes, the president had access to the same information that Ray Nagin did. And he failed in the same way Ray Nagin did. But I don't consider local disaster relief a primary responsibility of the Federal Government, I consider it a primary responsibility for the State government and in the case of a metropolitan area that generates billions in tax revenue every year a primary responsibility of the city. Hence Ray Nagin as the largest among many culprits.

even flow?

farfromglorified wrote:

Then I'll blame Porsche, because what they're selling me carries a promise to not fail in such a way.



I'm not blaming the mayor for the levees breaking. I'm blaming the mayor for ignoring the warnings that the levees would break given to him by the people who built them and for failing to plan accordingly.



No. They were built to withstand small aircraft hitting them, not passenger jets.



Yes, except it's not an "excuse", it's a fact.



Fair warning of what? Katrina? Yes, the president had access to the same information that Ray Nagin did. And he failed in the same way Ray Nagin did. But I don't consider local disaster relief a primary responsibility of the Federal Government, I consider it a primary responsibility for the State government and in the case of a metropolitan area that generates billions in tax revenue every year a primary responsibility of the city. Hence Ray Nagin as the largest among many culprits.

I want to be here the day California gets rocked with a doozy of an earthquake to read the "they shouldn't be living there" line. Not wishing an earthquake on anybody, but just to read the line.

baraka

I remember sitting in cafe in NO as a kid watching the barges float by. The barges were several feet above me. I also remember my mother telling me about the levees and how they were not designed to withstand anything greater than a level 2 or 3 hurricane and if NO did not update the levees, NO would 'get it' one of these days. I had this discussion with my mom in the 80's.

I can't understand why updating the levees was NOT the #1 priority in NO. I realize that Nagin did not design the levees, but at the very least the NO & Louisiana govt should have had a disaster plan in place. Hell, there wasn't even transportation available for the poor to evacuate the city to escape the impending storm. Also, some people have to learn the hard way that sometimes you have to spend money on the front end (updating the levees) to prevent spending a helluva lot more money on the back end, and more importantly to protect the well-being of the people.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Certainly! But they weren't designed or built to withstand such a storm, so I don't really see why I should blame them for it. If I leave my convertible out in the rain and it fills up with water, should I blame Porsche?

No, they weren't designed to withstand a Cat. 5 storm. Which is why a mandatory evacuation was called (the first in New Orleans history). However, the storm actually missed New Orleans proper, and the wind speeds and storm surge in and around the city probably reached about a Cat. 2 or Cat. 3 level - something the levees were meant to withstand (Betsy was a Cat. 3 and considered the template). If you frequently go from 100 mph to a dead stop just for fun, you blame yourself when the breaks don't work anymore - if your breaks fail under normal driving conditions, you blame Porshe. Though, I'll admit, our local leaders should have been pushing the issue a lot more. One lesson was learned - the disparate levee boards throughout the state (under vastly different administrations with different "goals," so to speak), were consolidated. Less cooks.

farfromglorified wrote:

Agreed. I'm not suggesting that Ray Nagin should be out there rebuilding levees, nor am I saying that he should have even fixed the old ones. I am suggesting that Ray Nagin should have known that those levees were going to fail in a serious storm and should have understood his responsibility to have a plan for such an event.

You're right, in hindsight some things should have been done differently. The Superdome, for example, was meant to house people for two or three days, tops. Same with the Convention Center. Nagin should never have assumed the "calvalry would arrive," as he put it. While it's absolutely deplorable and, in my opinion, criminal that they didn't - Nagin still shouldn't have assumed it. And the flooded busses? Well, for that, they were moved to an area that never flooded before. This time it did. C'est Levee.

farfromglorified wrote:

Agreed. But you're the one who brought up the levees, not me.

It was the levee failure that wrecked the city - not the storm itself (and insurance companies are having a field day with this little difference - but that's another story). If the levees had held, then all those people hold up in "shelters" could have walked home the next day.

farfromglorified

even flow? wrote:

I want to be here the day California gets rocked with a doozy of an earthquake to read the "they shouldn't be living there" line. Not wishing an earthquake on anybody, but just to read the line.

Are you even reading what I'm writing? I'm not suggesting that the people of New Orleans are at fault for living there, I'm suggesting that fault lies wherever a person ignores the consequences of living there and fails to plan accordingly.

If governors and mayors in California have absolutely no plan and are completely unready to deal with an earthquake-related disaster, of course I'll partly blame them for the fallout from that. Secondarily, I'll blame the fools who elected such representatives if the primary purpose of those representatives is to protect people.

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

But I don't consider local disaster relief a primary responsibility of the Federal Government, I consider it a primary responsibility for the State government and in the case of a metropolitan area that generates billions in tax revenue every year a primary responsibility of the city. Hence Ray Nagin as the largest among many culprits.

Come on, ffg. You can't believe that after a disaster the magnitude of Katrina that the Federal govt shouldn't step in and help?!

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

No, they weren't designed to withstand a Cat. 5 storm. Which is why a mandatory evacuation was called (the first in New Orleans history). However, the storm actually missed New Orleans proper, and the wind speeds and storm surge in and around the city probably reached about a Cat. 2 or Cat. 3 level - something the levees were meant to withstand (Betsy was a Cat. 3 and considered the template). If you frequently go from 100 mph to a dead stop just for fun, you blame yourself when the breaks don't work anymore - if your breaks fail under normal driving conditions, you blame Porshe. Though, I'll admit, our local leaders should have been pushing the issue a lot more. One lesson was learned - the disparate levee boards throughout the state (under vastly different administrations with different "goals," so to speak), were consolidated. Less cooks.

You're right, in hindsight some things should have been done differently. The Superdome, for example, was meant to house people for two or three days, tops. Same with the Convention Center. Nagin should never have assumed the "calvalry would arrive," as he put it. While it's absolutely deplorable and, in my opinion, criminal that they didn't - Nagin still shouldn't have assumed it. And the flooded busses? Well, for that, they were moved to an area that never flooded before. This time it did. C'est Levee.

It was the levee failure that wrecked the city - not the storm itself (and insurance companies are having a field day with this little difference - but that's another story). If the levees had held, then all those people hold up in "shelters" could have walked home the next day.

I don't disagree with any of this except for the part about the "calvarly", but I do hear where you're coming from.

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

Are you even reading what I'm writing? I'm not suggesting that the people of New Orleans are at fault for living there, I'm suggesting that fault lies wherever a person ignores the consequences of living there and fails to plan accordingly.

There is a difference between someone with money chosing to live in a region and generations of poor that happen to live in particular region. Without 'paper muscles', money, one can only plan up to a point. Those that could, did evacuate, then there were others that refused to leave and yes, that is on them. Then there were those that had no means of leaving or had sick or elderly family members they could move or leave behind. The situation is much more complicated than your statement.

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

Come on, ffg. You can't believe that after a disaster the magnitude of Katrina that the Federal govt shouldn't step in and help?!

I do believe that, in the case of Katrina. When we say "Federal Government", we're talking about someone living in Duluth Minnesota or Portland Maine shouldering that obligation. And I see no way to justify such an obligation.

I understand this is harsh. It's really easy to say that everyone should shoulder such a load. Justifying that responsibility, however, is not possible IMO.

hippiemom

farfromglorified wrote:

I do believe that, in the case of Katrina. When we say "Federal Government", we're talking about someone living in Duluth Minnesota or Portland Maine shouldering that obligation. And I see no way to justify such an obligation.

I understand this is harsh. It's really easy to say that everyone should shoulder such a load. Justifying that responsibility, however, is not possible IMO.

Given the importance of the port New Orleans in transnational trade, I think it's fair to say that everyone in this country benefits from having a viable city there, and for that reason alone see no reason why we shouldn't all pitch in to some extent in order to keep it up and running.

Then there's the simple fact that there were human beings in dire need of assistance, but I know that doesn't carry much weight with you.

sourdough

I really don't think New Orleans should be rebuilt period. I know that sounds harsh, but it was a stupid place to put a cit and it will sooner or later again be devastated. I know the same could be said about the west coast and earthquakes, but the geographical location of New Orleans makes the city incredbily vulnerable. Wedged between rivers, lakes andd ocean, below sea level, in the path of hurricanes and directly where the mississippi river wants to go through. Its a recipe for disaster.

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

There is a difference between someone with money chosing to live in a region and generations of poor that happen to live in particular region. Without 'paper muscles', money, one can only plan up to a point. Those that could, did evacuate, then there were others that refused to leave and yes, that is on them. Then there were those that had no means of leaving or had sick or elderly family members they could move or leave behind. The situation is much more complicated than your statement.

My statement does not deny such situations or complications. Blame requires fault. And fault requires actions contrary to purpose or responsibility. A poor person who cannot afford flood insurance who then loses his home is not at fault for anything until he suggests that his lack of flood insurance somehow obligates another to replace his home. If his purpose was to maintain his home in the event of a flood, his actions ran counter to that purpose. Certainly one could argue that the poor man had no practical option to purchase flood insurance and I'm fine with that. But that fact does not somehow obligate a housewife in Virginia or a businessman in Spokane to then provide that man with a new home, nor does it modify the fact that poverty always has a path preceding it.

To suggest that poor people should be treated any differently than rich people in such events is to actually deny the complications that preceded such labels: something makes one man rich while something else makes a man poor. And that something else is primarily the choices made by those individuals. Therefore, treating them as equals is to ignore such choices and the inherent complexity therein.

farfromglorified

hippiemom wrote:

Given the importance of the port New Orleans in transnational trade, I think it's fair to say that everyone in this country benefits from having a viable city there, and for that reason alone see no reason why we shouldn't all pitch in to some extent in order to keep it up and running.

It's fair to say that many in this country benefit from having a port there. Not sure how you justify the other 2 million people as a benefit to the rest of the nation. Furthermore, the American people have already paid for that port by paying the price for the products and services that come through that port.

Then there's the simple fact that there were human beings in dire need of assistance, but I know that doesn't carry much weight with you.

It carried enough weight for me to give money willingly to support efforts there. But that's a moral choice and I will not sanction the enforcement of my or your morality on my friends, neighbors or fellow citizens.