So I was reading the print edition of Scientific American (current issue, March 2006). Because SciAm stands on, well, the side of science, that makes it naturally hostile to the Bush administration, which is the most famous enemy of science since the Inquisition. You may recall, for example, SciAm's bitterly sarcastic - but exceptionally on-target -
editorial on evolution from a year ago.
SciAm was also scarily prescient about what could happen to New Orleans in the event of a major hurricane. An article from 2001 carried the following introduction:
A major hurricane could swamp New Orleans under 20 feet of water, killing thousands. Human activities along the Mississippi River have dramatically increased the risk, and now only massive reengineering of southeastern Louisiana can save the city
Talk about foresight being 20-20.
Back to the current issue. There's a letter to the editor in there, which I think is only available in the print edition (at least for now). Here's what it says:
In "Preparing for the Worst" [SA Perspectives], the editors again do not waste an opportunity to stick a thumb in the Bush administration's eye. And although you are truthful in what you say, what is telling is that which you omit: it was the Louisiana congressional delegation that coveted the funding for levee improvement and then led the charge to divert it to other purposes.
Van Snyder
La Crescenta, Calif.
This was a charge I hadn't heard before - that scurrilous LA congressmen demanded money for levees but then funnelled the proceeds elsewhere. It sounds like a wingnut talking point to me - and maybe it's not new. In fact, it's probably now that new because the LTE is responding to an article in the October issues of SciAm.
In any event, I'm wondering if anyone has heard this claim before, and if it's been debunked. (Or, worst-case, if it's actually true.)