Comments on: Message http://b.rox.com/2007/08/28/message/ Life in the Flood Zone Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:45:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Garvey http://b.rox.com/2007/08/28/message/#comment-140159 Garvey Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:42:11 +0000 http://b.rox.com/archives/2007/08/28/message/#comment-140159 Some interesting Post-K NO stuff here: http://www.mercatus.org/Programs/pageID.504,programID.4/default.asp And MCNO gets a mention here: http://www.mercatus.org/publications/pubid.4280/pub_detail.asp Some interesting Post-K NO stuff here:
http://www.mercatus.org/Programs/pageID.504,programID.4/default.asp

And MCNO gets a mention here:
http://www.mercatus.org/publications/pubid.4280/pub_detail.asp

]]> By: Editor B http://b.rox.com/2007/08/28/message/#comment-140110 Editor B Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:55:09 +0000 http://b.rox.com/archives/2007/08/28/message/#comment-140110 Some folks down here have taken to calling it the "federal flood" for just the reasons you mention, to create a sort of mental shorthand that this was not a purely natural disaster. But "Katrina" or "the storm" is more poetic. Perhaps the important distinction is that our flood control systems were not overwhelmed beyond what they were supposed to withstand. Katrina's surge revealed design flaws. The protection we were supposed to have turned out not to be there. Yes, there are real plans to restore the wetlands. I believe of Louisiana is dedicating some of its offshore revenues (to which we finally won some rights) to restoration. There's also some money for that in the current water resources bill which Bush is threatening to veto. http://www.kfolkjun.com/htv10/Home/tabid/36/EntryID/358/Default.aspx Some folks down here have taken to calling it the “federal flood” for just the reasons you mention, to create a sort of mental shorthand that this was not a purely natural disaster. But “Katrina” or “the storm” is more poetic.

Perhaps the important distinction is that our flood control systems were not overwhelmed beyond what they were supposed to withstand. Katrina’s surge revealed design flaws. The protection we were supposed to have turned out not to be there.

Yes, there are real plans to restore the wetlands. I believe of Louisiana is dedicating some of its offshore revenues (to which we finally won some rights) to restoration. There’s also some money for that in the current water resources bill which Bush is threatening to veto.

http://www.kfolkjun.com/htv10/Home/tabid/36/EntryID/358/Default.aspx

]]> By: Garvey http://b.rox.com/2007/08/28/message/#comment-140108 Garvey Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:29:15 +0000 http://b.rox.com/archives/2007/08/28/message/#comment-140108 Isn't the difference largely semantic, though? Without the hurricane as the inciting incident, then the flood would have never happened. In life, and especially in our society, we tend to reduce everything to the shorthand. In this case, the shorthand is one word: Katrina. To those of us on the outside, the specifics of exactly what happened, how it happened, and why it happened are too long for our reductionistic thinking. To folks on the inside, these things matter because you don't want to see them repeated. I know what you mean, though. This is what happened when a hurricane had an indirect hit, so imagine a direct one. BTW, are there any real plans of restoring the wetlands, etc., which would in turn absorb a lot of storm water (and have other benefits)? I can't say that trying to lock the Mighty Mississip' into place for eternity, thereby turning it into a swift chute, isn't a fool's errand, doomed to fail. Isn’t the difference largely semantic, though? Without the hurricane as the inciting incident, then the flood would have never happened. In life, and especially in our society, we tend to reduce everything to the shorthand. In this case, the shorthand is one word: Katrina. To those of us on the outside, the specifics of exactly what happened, how it happened, and why it happened are too long for our reductionistic thinking. To folks on the inside, these things matter because you don’t want to see them repeated.

I know what you mean, though. This is what happened when a hurricane had an indirect hit, so imagine a direct one.

BTW, are there any real plans of restoring the wetlands, etc., which would in turn absorb a lot of storm water (and have other benefits)? I can’t say that trying to lock the Mighty Mississip’ into place for eternity, thereby turning it into a swift chute, isn’t a fool’s errand, doomed to fail.

]]>