Mississippi and Alabama didn't have a city of almost half a million people
destroyed. They sufferred terrible damage, to be sure, but NO got it worse.
New Orleans had every opportunity not to be the poster child of the
tragedy. But instead of continuing with an evacuation plan, they boasted
about how the levees had held before the run-off from the storm had filled
Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi. They housed people in a
Superdome guaranteed to be flooded once the levees broke. By recent
news accounts they released prisoners and let them mingle with the
refugees, possibly contributing to the mayhem (looting, rapes, murders,
random shooting) that followed the storm. Governor Blanco didn't declare
martial law when she should have, and didn't call on the local National
Guard - at her disposal, BTW.
Having three physician friends in Baton Rouge, I'm getting an interesting
inside story to what's going on. It isn't pretty. The good news is that the
80% with means have fled and have found a way. The bad news is that the
remaining 20% have been left to the wolves and the incompetents.
If it wasn't for Texas, things would be much, much worse. If it wasn't for the
fact that New Orleans got a glancing blow (they got the west side of the
storm), things would be much, much worse.
Gene wrote:
Scientists, jourmalist and officials of the Federal government were warning for years
about the great peril the Mississippi Delta was in in the event of a hurricane.
They sure have. Build a city in the bull’s-eye of hurricane alley, and what do
you expect? Build levees and cause shrink-swell earth to sink well below
sea level, and what do you expect?
Gene wrote:
As recently as this past congressional session, Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-LA)
was pleading with Congress to let Louisiana keep a greater share of oil
revenues so they can build greater protections. He was rebuffed utterly.
Where were the "State's Rightist" supporters in Congress then?
What does asking the Federal Government for a handout have to do with
supporting State's Rights? Please explain.
I don't recall Richmond getting Federal Government money to build its
flood walls and levees. And they don't have an oil economy that could have
paid for it. Furthermore, Richmond did not allow residential zoning of known
flood areas.
The Federal Government is supposed to supply a safety net. "State's
Rights" advocates are all about personal responsibility and independence
from federal intrusion. Texas has done a really good job of using its own
oil revenue (after taxes) to deal with environmental concerns - so much so
that they occasionally joke about seceding from The Union. Today they are
losing millions a week in convention money from their facilities to house
Lousianna victims. They did it without being asked, and aren't asking for
anything in return.
Much of the engineering mess in New Orleans is self-imposed. And a
lawless attitude and living near the edge is great, so long as people don't
complain when bad things happen. The whole point of living on the edge is
the very real danger of falling off. In societies where that experience is
valued, you don't hear them bemoaning their misfortunes.
Yes, there are national implications to New Orleans faltering, just as there
would be if the California or Florida agricultural industry faltered. But since
the writing has been on the wall a long time, it seems that local interests
should have taken it upon themselves to do what was in the interest of
their citizens. By your account and others, Gene, there's plenty of money
going through that economy to deal with the issues raised without asking
for too much help from outside. And a solution for a nearly impossible
situation doesn't have to be perfect for it to be viable.
Bill
__ 
