Skip to main content

View Diary: Hastert: why rebuild New Orleans? It's just gonna get flooded again. (188 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This has been mentioned in a lot of diaries (4.00)
    Why did this one get front paged? There has been a lot of good discourse about it. I will pose this to you: We often band together when sound science is thrown out the window in the name of strict dogma (global warming, EPA rules, ESA, etc.). Since its' inception hundreds of years ago, NOLA has been sinking due to geologic and human (dewatering aquifers e.g.)factors. Scientifically it is a bad bad place (at least the lowest parts) to have a city, and there are other options for a port in the area (New New Orleans). Why are you any better than a flat Earth-no global warming pundit if you immediately dismiss discourse on this in the name of some dogmatic, emotional, and hubris filled agenda?
    Look at India or Bangladesh, the monsoons there are bad every few years and wipe tons of people out. Due to socioeconomic factors the poor always have to repopulate the worst places, thus get wiped out again. As an advanced society, can't we try to do better or at least discuss it?
    P.S. I think Hastert is a jerk too but not for this.
    •  whoa! (none)
      We concluded our similarly-themed, same-timed postings with an almost identical closing remark.  Weird.
    •  To continue our discussion, flounder (none)
      Noone here is disputing GW, or denying that preserving NO in its present circumstances is challenging.  But there are all sorts of inefficient livlihoods being maintained by the miracle of modern engineering.  And, as others have pointed out, the area seems pretty able to justify its existence as a major port and oil center, without even mentioninbg the UNIQUE and IRREPLACEABLE culture that is New Orleans.  I've seen you on several diaries on this same subject, and I have yet to understand why you are so focused on sacrificing New Orleans to what you preceive to be the only sensible response to climate change, and accusing those of us who disagree as non-reality based.

      Why don't we leave it up to folks in New Olreans whether we want to rebuild?

      No one likes armed missionaries. -- Robespierre.

      by Gator Keyfitz on Thu Sep 01, 2005 at 02:42:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not intent on sacrificing NO (none)
        I just think it is foolhardy to dismiss replacing it out of hand. If we rebuild, for instance, the French Quarter with a facsimile French Quarter, how "irreplaceable" was it really in the first place?
        I think replacing NO is a bad way to put it btw, but ceding the lowest areas to wetlands and focusing on building in areas that will weather a storm much better would help the greater city in the longterm and should be on the table.
        I agree that there are all sorts of inefficient livelihoods maintained through engineering, and when shit hits the fan it isn't the engineers and those who fund the engineers who end up paying but those who live on the fringe. I would argue that having them repeatedly pay so you can have your culture and jazz might be a little selfish.
        •  Your concern for the citizens of New Orleans (none)
          is so great, that you would deny them the choice of whether they rebuild their city or not because pushing the climate change meme is more important for your agenda?  Who's being selfish?  Yeah, yeah, I'm just dunking my beignet in blood, heartless monster that I am, all but personally chaining those poor wretches to the French Quarter so that they can shuck oysters for me when I visit.  Has it occurred to you that they may want to live there?  God knows all my friends there love the place.

          The funny thing is, I'm sort of an environmentalist myself, almost an extremist in fact, and I'm sure you and I would agree about a lot.  I just happen to feel that NO is one of the two or three coolest cities in AMerica, and I think it's worth saving, even at tremendous expense, even if it slips beneath the waves in a hundred years.

          No one likes armed missionaries. -- Robespierre.

          by Gator Keyfitz on Thu Sep 01, 2005 at 03:21:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Well. . . . (none)
        I think the reason that the issue is appropriate to a national discussion is because the nation will be largely financing it.

        New Orleans is a great city, but to rebuild it without an intelligent, sustainable environmental approach would not be smart, or--in the long run--kind to the returning inhabits (or their children), who may have to go through something like this again.

        The answer isn't higher or stronger walls, but a paradigm that lets the Mississippi do some of what it naturally needs to do to rebuild the buffer, and that might require moving the city some.  I don't see how it's problematic to think along those lines.

        As others here have said, Hastert's timing is stupid and heartless.

        And speaking of the towers, didn't NYC decide NOT to build them so big again, because they didn't want to create another target?  I mean, didn't NYC consider exactly this question?

        Claytonben

        •   Yeah, and New Orleans (none)
          has been "subsidising" your city too by being a major port and center for oil and refining.  Do you want to have a discussion like this every time there's a calamity?  Where do you live, and what might go wrong there?  

          No one likes armed missionaries. -- Robespierre.

          by Gator Keyfitz on Thu Sep 01, 2005 at 03:12:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site