yes, there was a lot. i'm not really sure how bad b/c i wasn't here then. but it was significant. people have told me lots of stories about this area being patrolled by tanks and about standing in front of their houses with rifles all night long.

the same would happen in any big city. it would happen in your city if conditions were similar. don't think this is particular to NO. people do crazy things when they are panicked and when there is no law enforcement.

There are good people and bad people...........the bad ones really piss me off..and the idiots in the media focus only on them......there is much good happening in N.O. and it will recover.....My wifes Grandmothers home is in Slydell....and is 12 feet under water.....

IMHO.....the looters should be shot on site.

---

I shall never misuse Rex Kwon Do
I shall be a champion of freedom and justice

My barber cuts a former metro-dade cop's hair. The cop told him that after Andrew, a few dudes turned up dead from strange hurricane related injuries like bullet holes, stabbed 20x etc.. These were made to look like crap fell on them and such. I bet it was weird to pull a dude out from under some concrete blocks and he had three bulllet holes in his chest. Cop said it most likely was old scores / accounts that got settled, perfect time to blame it on the storm, I bet it's happened in the big EZ as well. Remember NO is a violent place during the best of times, always a top 3 contender for murder capitol of the usa. Turn up the screws on the misery index and the media are having a field day showing good folks lose their cool. Related story, I met two cops tonight at the hospital that were getting hep/tet. shots enroute to biloxi. I heard one on the phone with his wife going over a list of gear he needed her to get out for him to pick up on the way. The last of which was his bullet proof vest, "hello, I've come from Florida to help you, please don't shoot me!"

I can't argue against NO being a filthy pit, of sorts. At least some of it. There will always be criminal elements in any large city, predators and opportunists as well as unstable people with violent intent. There are also Near-Saints in the area, going above and beyond the realm to help by doing things that surprise even the optimists. THen, there is the whole group in between...those that do some good, some bad, mostly just trying to survive. No, I don't think the looters should be shot on site. Yes, I do think the pot-shot-shooters SHOULD be shot on site, or hunted into their rat-hole and then shot.

My biggest wish is that New Orleans and the area NOT be rebuilt. It's a friggen flood plain, people. IT IS SUPPOSED TO FLOOD from the spring rains each year to nourish the Marshland (which is the nursery for the ocean), and the Marsh is essentially non-existant in the area. Without the spring floodwater spreading out over a large area so the silt can drop out into a Marsh, all that silt gets forced out into the gulf, choking it with oxygen-depleting material, which kills a lot of marine life, the very marine life that depends upon the Marsh for it's nursery. It's a very simple lesson, that I fear we will ignore.

Here's another problem: Houston. If, I mean, WHEN a hurricane hits the shipping channel and comes right up it, the devastation may be worse than NO due to the shape of the channel and the greater number of people living in the area. At least, Houston isn't on the flood plain of the largest river in NA, like NO is. In the long run, it's folly to try and tame mother nature's forces, especially when doing so ruins the food supply (marshes, etc.).

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

At whaat point do we stop rebuilding San Francisco? I think it has been devastated more than New Orleans and the fault moving again is a sure thing not just a rather small possibility of a Category 4 hurricane hitting New Orleans.

Katrina survivor, Bob Sigerson

There was some looting, which could have gotten out of control. However our local government had a back bone. Our Governor had the Florida National Gaurd here within a couple of days and our local police where out in force. We did receive Federal assistance in about the same amount of time as NO did. We however did not face the same type of storm. Andrew brought little to no flooding. There are parts of Homestead and Florida City that are still recovering. There where tent cities and trailer cities in the area for several years. The difference in the politicians was not one of R. vs D., but good vs bad. We where a D. state accross the board, but they handled the situation well.

---

The Cuban Comet
(Comets are unbelievably slow over Cuba)

Bob wrote: At whaat point do we stop rebuilding San Francisco? I think it has been devastated more than New Orleans and the fault moving again is a sure thing not just a rather small possibility of a Category 4 hurricane hitting New Orleans.


Good question. The difference I see is that Flooding of the Mississippi Delta is a SEASONAL event which is an integral part of Mother Nature's plan to replentish the Gulf marine life, as well as decrease the volume of sediment (which is choking to marine life when not allowed to settle out in a marsh) pumped out into the Gulf, whereas San Francisco is an unstable area that people choose to try to populate for ____________ (fill in the blank)reasons. Earthquakes are a spurious event, potentially more life-threatening than flooding of the Delta since the floods can be predicted far enough in advance to warn people to leave...earthquakes are much harder to forecast. ECOLOGICALLY, a marshland is infinitely more important to the life of the plants/animals AND therefore people that depend upon marine life, than an area such as San Francisco. Sure, there are specific organisms that thrive in the San Francisco area, but, as far as contributing to overall health and well being of the ocean and it's nursery...no comparison.

I have no doubt that we'll be foolish enough to rebuild much of NO. A MUCH more intelligent plan would be to back up to at least the edge of the latest flood line, and start building there. This won't happen, though...we will continue to try and thwart Mother Nature's forces, and will continue to pay for our folly with human suffering (not that there isn't value in some level of suffering) in the future, not to mention the untoward effects on the environment of the marshlands/Gulf marine life.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

If private money wants to rebuild it, that's fine. But I would not want my Federal dollars going for it. It will be an accident waiting to happen again. I would also not permit insurers to insure property there, because we wind up paying the increased premiums when the inevitable happens. That alone would limit re-construction. There are no jobs there. There is no real housing there, I say help the folks relocate, with a fixed amount per person--not based on their finances. The 9/11 victims compensation fund was an out-of control situation. Huge sums paid to victims families. Don't ask me for details--I am just shooting off my mouth.

P.S. I am not singling out NO. This goes for the other areas of the country that experience flooding every time a storm goes through.

I'd like to look more into the history of NO, in terms of disasters. I mean, it's been there for nearly 300 years - long before the river had been diked there or upstream. It probably survived all those years because the annual river flooding was minimized long before it got that far south - spreading across the northern flood plains. Now the river's all diked so the full force of the annual flood waters reach all the way to the delta. There's that and the sinking of the area due to sucking oil out of the ground.

It'd be great to just mow it all under and declare it a national reserve. Can you imagine the lawsuits?

---

Proud member of FISHTWITCH: doing a bit more than fish exercise now.

Marshes (even with their "infinite" importance) are marshes, oceans are oceans, and people are people. I personally tend to be concerned more with people. It's easy to say, "Oh, don't rebuild" until you add the extra, "you can come live at my house!"

This is the first time N.O. has flooded like this, so it's not exactly a biannual thing. Should the wealthy give up a $500k house Uptown to please a marsh? Should a poor black thug in the projects carjack a Caddie and move to Omaha? We're talking about people's property (or the gov'ts), I wouldn't be so quick to dispose of it to feed an ocean.

It's folly to think that one of the oldest and most original cities in North America won't be rebuit because it interferes with annual silt deposits in the marsh.
N.O. is irreplaceable to the US as far as it's importance in both shipping and petroleum industries. The last 2 (and largest) refineries built in the US are right outside N.O., so when you fill up, remember where it comes from. It ain't from California, and...you're welcome.

It'll be expensive to rebuild properly, especially with La being little better than a 3rd world country when it comes to political graft, but it will be rebuilt. If you don't like it...go visit DesMoine or Hartford or Akron, or some other hot tourist destination, I hear they have a thumping Mardi Gras.

As for the looters and shooters, insert any politically incorrect reason, and you won't be far wrong. N.O. thugs are in a class by themselves, they would shoot you for a Timex.
I hope to God the good guys kill them all.

-bobo, Katrina survivor

bobo wrote: Marshes (even with their "infinite" importance) are marshes, oceans are oceans, and people are people.

I disagree. Simply because: without Marshes, Oceans aren't alive. Period. Without live oceans, many people won't survive due to lack of food, or, they will have to relocate inland. Sure, you could still get crayfish (or crawfish, as they often call them in NO) from the bayou, but the nursery of the ocean IS the Marsh. Forget shrimp harvests...ask the shrimpers how important is the marsh. Study the role of shrimp in the food chain of the ocean. Reefs pale in comparison as far as a nursery goes.

I consider it egregious to think perceived CURRENT Human "needs" are of utmost importance...we don't NEED 5.7 liter gasoline (and make that CHEAP gas, OK?) engines in four-wheel drive vehicles to go to the store to pick up a 6-pack and some cigarettes. We NEED to keep our pollution generation and energy consumption at sustainable levels so we don't foul-up this spaceship (called EARTH) so much that it becomes unihabitable. If THAT happens, all the "humanism" in the universe isn't going to matter. Our numbers will plummet dramatically, just like the shrimp harvest that used to be so plentiful in the gulf close to NO.

History of NO, short version: The French arrived there one fall, and found the area to be relatively dry, and decided to build there. The following spring, they were flooded out. The first flood wall was built that summer. The following spring, the water made it behind the wall and they were flooded out...so, they built the wall a little further up river, repeat ad nauseum until you get the system we have (make that, HAD) today. It is folly.

Rebuild it, if you want. Just don't use federal money to do so. I paid the taxes, and my VOTE is NOT to use it to rebuild the city just as it was. If I'm outvoted, fine, I'd accept that. Although I'm certainly not naive enough to think this decision would be put to a vote...if it were, my bet is that it would be voted to NOT be rebuilt on the same site.

By the way, we are part of a group that has "taken in" displaced survivors of the disaster. This is a current human "need" that is truly a "need". I'm in no way opposed to the people of this region in any way...I just would rather not see so much federal money spent to try and out-manuever the Mississippi River and Mother Nature's hurricane forces.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

Shove it up your ass Titan. If it was your home and heritage you would want to rebuild too. Oh and since the city is 300 years old... it wasnt always below sea level, jackass. And the "pit" you are describing... based on your qualifications then every major city in this country is a pit. Los Angeles has Compton, Chicago has Caprini Green, San Francisco has Oakland, ect. Gimme a break. Human civilization has always built on or near water ways. EVERY city in Europe is built on a friggn river.

So lets all just move to Vegas and continue to destroy the ecosystem out there (which you apparently are a protector of) because its not near a floodplain.

rnnrgrl wrote: "...it wasnt always below sea level..."

News flash....it is now.

So, do we just repeat our mistakes? Probably. It's typically the short-sighted way we do things, because we want what we want. Damn the ramifications. You obviously have a different viewpoint. You're entitled to it.

As far as my viewpoint, being of Native American Heritage, my heritage goes back a lot further than 300 years in North America...as if the number of years has anything to do with viewpoints, and what was done to the Native Americans is much more horrible than what happened in NO.

So, what do I choose to do? I realize that things have changed and I move on. That's also what I wished would happen to the swamped NO...because it IS 10 feet under sea level...on a flood plain...next to a giant river.

Peace.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

Halfspeed--no offense, because I am a man of peace, but do you know this for a fact? I am asking because I don't know, not because I disagree.

I believe it was in the Nat Geo article published last October that someone posted in another thread here. http://205.188.130.53/ngm/0410/feature5/

Excerpt:

But two years ago former petroleum geologist Bob Morton, now with the U.S. Geological Survey, noticed that the highest rates of wetland loss occurred during or just after the period of peak oil and gas production in the 1970s and early 1980s. After much study, Morton concluded that the removal of millions of barrels of oil, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, and tens of millions of barrels of saline formation water lying with the petroleum deposits caused a drop in subsurface pressure—a theory known as regional depressurization. That led nearby underground faults to slip and the land above them to slump.

"When you stick a straw in a soda and suck on it, everything goes down," Morton explains. "That's very simplified, but you get the idea." The phenomenon isn't new: It was first documented in Texas in 1926 and has been reported in other oil-producing areas such as the North Sea and Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela. Morton won't speculate on what percentage of wetland loss can be pinned on the oil industry. "What I can tell you is that much of the loss between Bayou Lafourche and Bayou Terrebonne was caused by induced subsidence from oil and gas withdrawal. The wetlands are still there, they're just underwater." The area Morton refers to, part of the Barataria-Terrebonne estuary, has one of the highest rates of wetland loss in the state.

The oil industry and its consultants dispute Morton's theory, but they've been unable to disprove it.

--------------------------------------

Also, the land sinks due to natural sediment compaction. This is normally offset by the slow moving waters of a natural delta dropping its sediment payload - building the delta lands up and outward. But, due to levies, the velocity of the river is high and the sediment isn't dumped until it's well out into the Gulf. The land continues to drop.. .and shrink.

---

Proud member of FISHTWITCH: doing a bit more than fish exercise now.