I missed it this morning but transcript here:

Katrina Stirs Up Oily Nightmare

Also you can watch the video, there is a link to so on the same page.

Not a lot I can add to this one.

This is an interesting thread - and since everyone seems to be throwing in their 2 cent's worth ...
I live in Germany (used to live in England) and I'd like to add a view from abroad (don't know how many non-US people are writing here).
There is, admittedly, a certain anti-US sentiment present in Europe - and in many other countries - but this is mainly a result of bad PR on the part of politicians and media. Anybody who knows US culture a bit better will also cite a list a mile long of great Americans (from Charles Ives through Chomsky, Bill Hicks, Scorcese, Zappa, J.B, Muhammed Ali ...) - most of these people are loved in Europe. There is nobody I have spoken with who celebrated this disaster in New Orleans (or 9.11) and, had the hotlines been set up, people would have donated money. Again, the PR machinery worked against the natural good nature that most people display during such events and (mainly media-driven) propaganda turned this thing into a a finger-pointing exercise. The will to help is there, but the infastructure to do it is not - why didn't google etc set up click 'n pay donation channels for example - as they did for the tsunami?
I visit a (eek!) US boxing website regularly - and we all know the colour of the greatest US boxers - and they haven't even mentioned this disaster although they did mention 9.11 and the tsunami. And although the racial component is too complex to judge competently from abroad, it does look like a lot of poor black people got a raw deal here, looting or not.
I have Ameriacan friends here in Europe, and know from personal experience that it's too easy to start on the 'stupid Americans' trip - but flag-waving for your home country is not going to solve the problem either. As an English person in Germany, I've seen first-hand how nationalist polemic is a redundant force - how many Germans can (or would be permitted) to claim pride in their nationality? And that's where this is interesting: you are born into a country by accident (unless you believe in destiny) and can neiother be proud nor ashamed of that accident. I often feel pity for friends who were born in Germany in the 70's and still feel and express guilt for the holocaust: guilt for this atrocity cannot be inherited. They have learned that nationalism leads to hatred - and I hope that those who seek to point the finger at either America, Iraq, Israel or Iran - and vice-versa - will see this.
The most constructive way forward in the light of this recent disaster is being shown by those who realise that to amass 'evidence' in support of a basically bigoted world view is to excuse oneself from actually helping out.

To close (sorry for being so long-winded), I'd add that the bad PR also stems from Hollywood. We in Europe, despite efforts of small film companies and filmmakers, are struggling to compete in the world market. We have our own languages, our own cultures, our own societies which we like to reflect in our films. But sadly, this can't compete with multi-million dollar action films for sheer thrill. So many people go to see Hollywood films.
But when we get to the end of our 90 minutes and the world has exploded, the martians have been wiped out, or the deadly virus conquered, it is exclusively an American ending - the US army, the marines, the superhero or whatever has saved the day and no other - Paris, Bombay, Lagos or Peking may lay in ruins, but, what the hey!. This creates a certain resentment - a (to quote Guy de Bord) pathological lack of representation in the viewer. One has the feeling that only being American is important - but of course we can't all fly over and become Americans. I don't 'blame' Hollywood for this, but I think that if the logic of reinforcing US national identity through cinematic propaganda were replaced with encouraging national pride by presenting the variety, culture, and openness of the people living in the US, the situation would be more conducive to sympathy than it is right now.
When the Romans overran and ruled most of Europe, the Gauls, the Saxons, the English and the Belgians celebrated every defeat suffered by their far-off Roman potentates. That's the nature of being a world power. I will bet my right arm that if in 20 years, Americans are sitting watching sequel 5 of 'Yang Lee saves the World' (In Chinese with English subtitles of course) and see that the only American character in the film is a drug dealer, they will also feel a tweak of resentment.

I've noticed that this thread is longest in recent memory ... over 195+ posts to date. This indicates to me that there's a great deal of interest in this topic ... as there should be, IMHO.

I've also noted that there seem to be two kinds of posts; those who want do have a lively discourse about the response situation, and those who want to inhibit this discourse.

Some say that participants here are "at their worst." I disagree, the facts of the response situation are a reason to get worked up a bit.

And for those who want to "moderate" this discussion, why? You know what's going on in this thread, you have the choice to read it or not, you have the choice to participate or not. You can even start a new thread if it pleases you, a "positive" thread. Besides, while calling for other people to "shut up" you use phrases like "If you're so smart, how come you're not rich?" and "ludicrous," words that look like you'd rather start an argument about another's right to speak their mind, as opposed to the real issues at hand.

I've already contributed more than $1 for every post (of ANY kind) on this thread. I'm not going to tie my generosity to attempts to modify others' behavior.

I'd also like to say that I'm grateful to SONY for allowing this outlet. This thread is definately counter to thier TOS, but I believe they realize that this is an important discussion, and a popular one. They can lock it at any time they want. Kudos, SONY!

But please, enough policemen!

Matt,
No one is trying to police this. I would suspect that if anyone from Sony were in here, they'd zap it.

My mistake in trying to get people who are usually quite congenial with each other from calling each other names.

Regarding my generosity, that's probably a mistake. That said, we've done our share of helping out, financially and physically. Our winter quarters military base has taken in over 1000 refugees, provided food, shelter, $$, and clothing.

I had originally decided to stay away from this thread. I even think it may have reached the point that nothing substantial can be gained by it's existence. I'll post this and let that be my say on the matter as a member of this community.

While I am a fan of debate, I think the most important message we can presently promote through this forum is "do something to help". There are people in LA, MS and AL who, as we type these messages, have lost all of their possessions and, in many cases, members of their families. How much you dislike a particular person involved in the recovery effort doesn't help these folks get back on their feet. Donating money and/or your time will.

There will be plenty of time to determine what errors were made and who made them. That information, however, will only come from frank and intellectually honest debate. Ultimately, there is personal responsibility on behalf of the citizens/victims along with the responsibilities the governement(s) (at all levels) bear. How did each group handle their respective responsibility? Open minded individuals will be able to look at the final analysis and make decisions.

It is sad when people let their dislike (and in some instances pure hatred) of another individual (or group of individuals) get in the way of finding out what truly happened in a given situation. Nothing positive comes from hyperbole, personal attacks or unfounded accusations. If an error is made, we should be willing to shed light on that error regardless of the political fallout. Only by doing this will we ever hope to move past a situation and perfect a change so the same type error doesn't occur again.

Errors were made. In my opinion, the facts appear to place blame at every level to varying degrees. From mitigation to preparedness to recovery there were errors. Just one example: The mayor and other leaders in NO had prepared a DVD in July of this year (to distribute to citizens) and the message was basically 'if a hurricane hits you're on your own.' (Times-Picayune, July 2005). I've read the NO emergency operations plan and that language is missing. That is but one piece of a large puzzle that must be put together in the after action portion of this disaster. ( Along with errors, some things were done correctly by the way)

We should be looking for answers.....but can we at least do so in reasonable and productive fashion? Some of the things posted in this thread are far from that and are, at best, embarrassing. It's easy to overreact and jump to conclusions. That's the only exercise some people seem to get. Finding the truth and fixing problems....now that requires a bit more energy.

Keith

Alexz, thank you for an interesting perspective.

This thread originally began by asking, in part: Where was the outside (ie, non-US) help?

I tried to make the point that outside help WAS offered, almost immediately, but that it wasn't much reported. As video editors, we quickly learn that what gets seen and heard---and what DOESN'T get seen and heard---can drastically affect a viewer's perception of a given situation. If we don't hear about other countries offering help, we simply believe they don't care.

There's an article from the Washington Post here:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=3994

Of course, it's on Michael Moore's site, which almost guarantees some people won't look at it. And, of course, it's from the Washington Post, which guarantees these same folks won't be bothered. Double whammy.

I don't know if the article is "true" or not. But I have no trouble believing it---not because it's the Post, and not because it's on MM's site, but because of my many experiences with arrogant people and systems made inefficient, in part, due to arrogance. The world saw the same thing when the Russians refused to ask for help when the Kursk sank. They learned, and when their research sub got tangled up in a fishing net some weeks ago, they allowed help from the US and the Brits. The Brits saved the Russians' bacon.

I'm sure the guys on the sub were happy to be on the surface again, even if it WASN'T the Russians who untangled their vessel.

It seems to me that some of the hardest words to utter are PLEASE, THANK YOU, CAN I HELP YOU?, and WOULD YOU MIND HELPING ME?

If nothing else, this thread is valuable study material for people who tell stories via the video medium. What gets said? What doesn't get said? HOW is it said? Etc.

---J.

I just ran across this fundraiser for the Gulf State:
http://www.hellchick.net/knittingforneworleans/

it's several women who work in Madison (not Media Software, a different company) knitting mittons & selling them on e-bay. All the money goes to charity. Pretty neat idea i think! I'll be bidding (it gets cold here anyway... could use some mittons so I'm not wearning work gloves all winter again!)

Wow! Post #201 in this thread!

I just finished watching a couple of TV news shows tonight. It looks like things are gradually winding down. The nerd in me was fascinated by a news report showing one of the huge pumps drawing down water in New Orleans. The commentator said that some pump named "Big Bertha" was about to also come on-line, and that it could do something like 1,000,000 gallons per minute. I find that hard to believe, but maybe they have something like that down there. After all, a big thunderstorm dumps a lot of water in a short time, and they have to have something that can keep up.

On the people side of things, it seems more and more to me that the mayor of New Orleans really blew it big-time (not getting the remaining people out in time). They had action plans for this scenario, but the plans were never followed. The governor made some mistakes, too, but at least you can see she was/is competent. But the mayor has made some bizarre comments that make me wonder how he became mayor in the first place.

CNN poll says that only 13% blame Bush for the problems. As a fan of the guy, I'm glad for that.

Oh, the latest news--it seems that the Red Cross (I think) had all kinds of medical personnel and supplies ready immediately after the hurricane, and were heading for the Superdome, but they were refused permission by something called the "Louisiana Department of Homeland Security" (not the Feds) who feared that allowing food and supplies to proceed to the Superdome would act as a magnet, drawing other refugees to the Superdome! Imagine that! I'm happy I'm not the official who made that decision...

"My mistake in trying to get people who are usually quite congenial with each other from calling each other names."

Spot -- Certainly NOT a mistake. We all need to get this out or our systems. I hope this collective venting causes no permanent harm; there will be a point where its less of a flash point. I do believe we all need outlets to deal with what we're thinking, and to learn form others.

Living just outside of Seattle, I'm not aware of any relocation happening here. I've made monetary contributions. I want to help in other ways. I can say I feel the same kind of frustrations we've seen in this thread.

I'm pleased that your local military base is helping out, and that you can find ways to directly support that.

This situation is so darned frustrating!

Cheers,
-Matt

Riredale, my reports were that it was FEMA that stopped the Red Cross. FEMA was the authorized and primary responder, since Governor Blanco, on August 28th, requested and was granted a Federal Disaster Area declaration from President Bush.

However, I'll grant you that there were at least a hundred school buses in a maintenance yard that could have been deployed for the evacuation, and the Mayor will have to take some responsibility for not using these resources. On the other hand, a lot of people (as we still are seeing a week and a half later) were not going to leave by their own choice.

The CNN poll I saw is very different from what you report - when I last checked, I recall about 74% of the poll responders blamed the federal government's (and by proxy that means Mr. Bush's) slow response for the problems that transpired in Katrina's wake.

In any case, the city is now almost evacuated, and the Mayor will authorize the police and National Guard to remove people forcefully that try to stay, once they evacuate the ones who don't want to stay. The death toll will probably take weeks or months to be tallied as the grim sludge is pored through by recovery teams.

Let's pray we don't have any more Cat5 hurricanes this season which wreak further havoc.

Bob.

>>>Oh, the latest news--it seems that the Red Cross ...<<<

That is somewhat old news. It has been up on their own site since Saturday/Sunday -

Acess to New Orleans is controlled by the National Guard and local authorities and while we are in constant contact with them, we simply cannot enter New Orleans against their orders.

They also say this:

The original plan was to evacuate all the residents of New Orleans to safe places outside the city. With the hurricane bearing down, the city government decided to open a shelter of last resort in the Superdome downtown. We applaud this decision and believe it saved a significant number of lives.

All i know is that everyone is sort of pointing fingers now. The red Cross is pointing, but is somewhat af a 'nice way' but still in a "hey don't blame us' way. On the other hand I also know that some of evcuated people form SBP have been having a hard time with the Red Cross in certian areas. One of them went to a center somewhere in LA and go told they had to save their resources for residents of N.O only. Sort of the same concept of the woman who was waiting to be evacuated and got asked by FEMA wht her fax was so they could fax her the needed paperwork, when she told them she was standing in a field they asked for her email instead.

Didn't watch the show tonight because Junior got bumped last night again for more "important" guests like Dr Phil (Promoting his new show - seriously. They Showed a clip and Larry asked what happened and Phil says, with a huge grin, "You'll have to watch the show") and the guy who wrote "A Purpose Driven life" (promoting his book). Really disgusted me.

Well I tonight I heard Larry was talking about the deaths in SBP and Parish President Henry "Junior" Rodriguez called in and the shows producer hung up on him. I also know that earlier CNN was reporting "breaking" news about the people who died in the parish last Friday night ...you know, when no one cared about the area, only N.O. Now that N.O is "slowing down" I guess th emedia needs to scrape around for "news" - even old news.

Lets see..what were the word Jack spoke - "You want the truth?? You can't handle the truth!!"

"The CNN poll I saw is very different from what you report - when I last checked, I recall about 74% of the poll responders blamed the federal government's (and by proxy that means Mr. Bush's) slow response for the problems that transpired in Katrina's wake."

I wasn't going to add anything more to this thread, but I thought I'd help clear up the confusion. I just read the CNN site, and I can see where the confusion lies. In a sense, you are both correct.

You need to read the story and the poll very carefully. Here is the link to the page on the CNN site where the poll is reported:

Poll: Most Americans believe New Orleans will never recover

The confusion is that there are three parts to the poll and, if not read carefully, they seem to be saying opposite things.

Here are the three relevant quotes:

Opinions varied widely, however, on the response of federal, state and local officials regarding Katrina. Forty-two percent of respondents characterized President Bush's response to the disaster as "bad" or "terrible," while 35 percent said it was "good" or "great."

Thus, by a narrow 6:5 margin, the people polled didn't like Bush's response, which I assume means how he acted, what he said, and where he went immediately after the storm departed.

Next:

Federal government agencies' response was described as "bad" or "terrible" by 42 percent, and "good" or "great" by 35 percent. State and local officials' response was described as "bad" or "terrible" by 35 percent and "good" or "great" by 37 percent.

Although this is a different question, the response is basically the same. I think this question gauges how people reacted to seeing, on TV, people in need not getting the help they deserved in a timely manner. Note that despite everything we all saw, less than half describe it as terrible, and there isn't much difference between how they view Federal, State, and local officials.

Finally, here's the quote that is the one originally referred to (remember, this is all from the same poll):

Respondents also disagreed widely on who is to blame for the problems in the city following the hurricane -- 13 percent said Bush, 18 percent said federal agencies, 25 percent blamed state or local officials and 38 percent said no one is to blame. And 63 percent said they do not believe anyone at federal agencies responsible for handling emergencies should be fired as a result.

This has to do with blame. In other words, lots of people (although still fewer than half) believe the response was slow, but virtually no one blames Bush, and over a third said no one is to blame (i.e., they realize it was a damn-near impossible task to respond quickly to this big an event). While I happen to totally agree with this assessment, I am amazed at the minuscule percentage that blame Bush. I cannot think of anything this controversial that has such an overwhelming, convincing majority opinion. I am especially amazed, given how evenly divided the country seems to be about most things regarding this president.

This poll was conducted by CNN/USA Today/Gallup.

I haven't heard anyone in the media ask this question, but is sure seems like an obvious one to ask:

If everyone is evacuated to far away locations, and since the host states are scrambling to find jobs for all of them, who will come back to New Orleans to re-populate the city?

To put even a sharper point on the question, it is an old adage that good workers can always find jobs. If this is so, it would seem that the vast majority of those that eventually return will be the marginally unemployable.

Thus, if I were the mayor, I would be working at trying to let people stay, at least in the 40% of the city that is no longer under water. I would also try to keep as many people as possible in building and shelters closer to home rather than relocating them to all corners of the continent. I note that many of the high rise buildings already have their lights back on.

I really wonder about the wisdom of a complete evacuation.

Let's see what happens over the next six weeks ...

In terms of the polls to date, let me first address the norms for polling in terms of accuracy.
“The bigger the sample, the smaller the margin of error, but once you get past a certain point -- say, a sample size of 800 or 1,000 — the improvement is very small. The CNN/Gallup survey had a sample of 609 adults. A sample of 1000 is considered the norm for accuracy.
Let’s start with the CNN/Gallup poll from Sept 5 (LABOR DAY) and Sept 6. The sample size was 609 nationwide. The CNN summary and conclusions were cited above by John Meyer:

[Opinions varied widely, however, on the response of federal, state and local officials regarding Katrina. Forty-two percent of respondents characterized President Bush's response to the disaster as "bad" or "terrible," while 35 percent said it was "good" or "great."]

Referring to pollingreport.com the question posed to the 609 respondents was as follows:
"On a different topic: Do you think [see below] has/have done a great, good, neither good nor bad, bad, or terrible job in responding to the hurricane and subsequent flooding?"
George Bush: 35% said Good or Great and 42% said bad or Terrible. That was accurate, but what CNN left out completely was that 21% said Neither Good Nor Bad. That fact implies that many haven’t decided yet so prudence would dictate that it may be too early to draw conclusions particularly in light of the relatively low sample size. I suppose that is why politicians including Bush are calling for an investigation isn’t it?

The second conclusion cited by CNN was:

[Federal government agencies' response was described as "bad" or "terrible" by 42 percent, and "good" or "great" by 35 percent. State and local officials' response was described as "bad" or "terrible" by 35 percent and "good" or "great" by 37 percent.]

Again CNN omitted the middle response which was that 20% of the relatively small sample size said Neither Good Nor Bad in terms of the Federal response and 23% in terms of the state and local officials.

The third conclusion cited by CNN was:

[Respondents also disagreed widely on who is to blame for the problems in the city following the hurricane -- 13 percent said Bush, 18 percent said federal agencies, 25 percent blamed state or local officials and 38 percent said no one is to blame. And 63 percent said they do not believe anyone at federal agencies responsible for handling emergencies should be fired as a result.]

The question was worded as follows:
"Who do you think is MOST responsible for the problems in New Orleans after the hurricane: George W. Bush, federal agencies, or state and local officials -- or is no one really to blame?"
Aside from the 6% that said they were unsure CNN revealed the response accurately, but what EXACTLY does the question mean? Which “problems”? Moreover since the flooding occurred AFTER the hurricane, how did the relatively small sample size interpret the question? Problems after the Hurricane (which would include the flooding itself) or after the Flooding? The poor wording could account for the apparent discrepancy in these reponses as compared to the other responses.

Yet despite flaws in the poll the pundits on CNN still tried to read into it:

Bill Schneider (Sr. political analyst for CNN and resident fellow at the Conservative “American Enterprise Institute” along with such members as Jean Kirkpatrick, David Frum, Lynn Cheney, Richard Perle, and Newt Gingrich) appeared on Lou Dobbs Tonight on Wednesday.
CNN White House Pundit Lou Dobbs posed this to Schneider:
“…..But a new poll suggests the majority of Americans are not yet ready to point the blame solely at President Bush, BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. CNN's senior political analyst Bill Schneider has the analysis. Bill, just who's being blamed?

BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, that's a good question. And the answer may surprise a lot of people, because the answer is NOBODY. People don't think ANYONE should be held responsible for the problems in New Orleans after the hurricane. …… You know, Lou, there are two separate questions, who's to blame which seems to preoccupy everyone in Washington. But the more important question to the public is what went wrong. That's what they'd like Congress to investigate.

The spin continues…..you can read it yourselves.

ABC/Washington post conducted a poll with an even SMALLER sample size of only 501 respondents. Not only that, they decided to conduct the poll on the Friday of the Labor Day weekend. If you read the links regarding polling accuracy there are certain times of the year and certain days of the week (Friday and Saturday night) in a NORMAL week that are considered poor days to poll let alone on a Friday night of a holiday weekend.

The September 2, ABC/Washington Post poll (on that same polling report page I linked above) asked the small sample group:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation caused by Hurricane Katrina?"
46% Approved 47% disapproved and 8% were unsure.
"How would you rate the federal government's overall response to the situation caused by the hurricane and flooding: excellent, good, not so good or poor?"
48% good or excellent 51% not so good or poor 1% unsure

The questions were worded much better than the CNN/Gallup poll, but the sample size was tiny and the timing was poor (as outlined in the norms for polling I linked above).

Never the less ABC decided to SPIN the poll for Bush:

ABC HEADLINE:

Poll: Bush Not Taking Brunt of Katrina Criticism
Hurricane Preparedness Is Faulted; Fewer Blame Bush for Problems
.

And the other media networks like MSNBC, Fox, and CBS have been spreading these polls around as if they accurately reflect the American public's thought on the subject.

"The Zogby America survey of 1157 likely voters, conducted from September 6 through 7, 2005, has a margin of error of +/-2.9 percentage points. "
It didn't fare as well for Bush.
"President Bush’s job approval rating took a hit in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, dropping to a historic low of 41%, a new Zogby America poll reveals. The same survey found the nation’s forty-third president would lose election contests against all of his predecessors since Jimmy Carter."
"The public rates the performance of all levels of government in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina negatively, with 36% giving the President passing marks on his handling of the crisis—slightly higher than the 32% who give government in general good marks for its handling of the storm that devastated New Orleans and much of the Gulf coast. "

The media will most likely take the Zogby poll (with a higher accuracy level) and compare it to the other two to try and cast doubt on it without revealing the flaws in the other two polls. Or they won't report it at all.






John

Hi PossX,
thanks for your response. You're right, I did reply based on one of the opening issues. I scanned over it (I admit to not reading the whole thread yet) and was provoked into responding by the phrase "stinking cesspits" (see opener).
Thing is, most non-US folks can't really judge what's happening on the ground because they (we) are dependent on second-hand sources like the mainstream media, websites etc. The bias is usually injected before it reaches us, so it's unfair to make accusations about foreigners based on the feedback of the same media. But normal, metally healthy people in Europe, Asia, America or wherever don't tend to wish tragedy upon anyone - I think we can agree on that.
Of course, if you've got a bee in your bonnet about those poor people living in the 'stinking cesspits' anyway, you'll believe it when the media tries to report that e.g. all Iranians are insane America-haters. A friend of mine just spent 6 weeks in Syria and Iran, and he said most people will share their last potato with you out of pure hospitality.
But my real reason for responding was to mention that we suffered terrible flooding two years in a row now in Germany (though with less lives lost) - and our poorer neighbours in Eastern Europe didn't really jump to help out. But it's understandable - they are poor, we are rich. Nobody's going around blaming them. On top of that, Rumania and Bulgaria have endured weeks of floods and other countries in Europe have had comparable climate-related disasters.
The question that many people here are asking is, "what are we going to do long-term to deal with an apparently worsening climate situation?"
And this involves America. Europe needs US support for its (admittedly slow and marginal) attempts to tackle global warming. It does not really need to go off fighting wars - its seen enough over the years.
Holland, which is largely at sea-level, is particularly concerned about global warming, but feels powerless when its own policy of encouraging cycling is not taken up by its neighbours or other states.
I think that what we all need is leadership which is going to discuss not only the cure, but also the prevention of natural disasters - because i can't see it getting any better in the coming years. How about voting in a guy who owns a bicycle factory at the next elections:-)

"what are we going to do long-term to deal with an apparently worsening climate situation?"
==========
The majority party and the government use the media to bring on so-called experts to discredit the data on global warming. Bush supporters (which includes the media) tout this line . Bush changed his tune on the subject when he went to the G8 summit and shifted from "There is no such thing as global warming" to "Global warming is one of the most important issues of our time", but Kyoto would cost American corporations too much money so the US is opposed to Kyoto. The issue will go nowhere under the present leadership.
Don't confuse our media with the BBC. It couldn't shine it's shoes. They are directly responsible for our problems.

John

In all fairness to our beloved leader, he never said "There is no such thing as global warming."

He only said "it's not been proven [beyond any doubt] that global warming exists."

This is certainly true, but I thought of the scene in "Planet of the Apes" where Charlton Heston walks a beach and finds a familiar torch [from the Statue of Liberty] sticking up from the sand.

Only I saw in my mind Bush's raised finger sticking up from the sand and a voice coming from underground, "It's not been proven beyond any doubt..."

:O)

Alexz, I only get to Europe occasionally, but I've very much enjoyed it, for a variety of eye-opening reasons.

Having an Austrian girlfriend who works as an intepreter is helping me become less of a Jethro Bodine, because she interprets at a variety of different kinds of meetings and can therefore discuss many sides of a particular issue with me. Many of these issues, of course, don't get discussed or reported here, for whatever reasons.

I'm by no means a news junkie, but I enjoy watching German or Austrian channels because of the refreshing differences in how the news is presented---and with no commerical interruptions.

Interesting side note RE: European flooding. Some years ago there was a debate over whether to control the flow of the Danube through Vienna, in anticipation of The Big One (flood.) Many, including my girlfriend, opposed the measure as being unneccesary and expensive.

Then The Big One came, and guess which city along the Danube was NOT flooded?

Generally speaking, insurance premiums (or disaster prevention infrastructure measures) are cheaper than replacement costs. As the Viennese discovered.

I may be wrong about this, but the US probably has more cities along its very lengthy coastline than almost any other nation. Global warming, if it's an actual phenomenon and poses actual danger, would thus affect our cities to a greater degree than many other nations----but, hell! We'd rather drive SUVs.

Our motto: The economy uber alles!

I really wonder about the wisdom of a complete evacuation.
John, it may be a situation where there are no good easy answers. One problem that I can see is that is the 40% of the city that is not underwater contains a lot private property. The class dynamics of New Orleans has always been that the higher ground were occupied by the better off, the low ground was occupied by the poor. That 40% is made up of thousands of parcels of land owned by many different people/corporations. Also the high ground suffered the least damage, so there are probably lots of houses that are inhabitable now or repairable once the city is back functioning. Shelters close by would still have to be most likely outside the city of New Orleans.



In all fairness to our beloved leader, he never said "There is no such thing as global warming."
I think the state of play is the all scientists believe the earth is warming over the last 150 years. The evidence for this is based on changes in deep polar ice. The latest move is to cast doubt on whether human beings or greenhouse gases are the cause of that.

The class dynamics of New Orleans has always been that the higher ground were occupied by the better off, the low ground was occupied by the poor.

Is there any city where this is not the case? I can't recall any city with elevation differences that didn't have this. The only exception is where there are nice coast lines, there the better off will of course be filling up the beach property. Nothing wrong with this, it seems to be in human nature.

The latest move is to cast doubt on whether human beings or greenhouse gases are the cause of that.

Well, there's been quite a bit of "faith-based science" in the federal government lately. Scientific reports from the EPA were redacted by a White House staffer a few months ago, has this been forgotten already?

"Holland, which is largely at sea-level, is particularly concerned about global warming"

I'm living in the lowlands part of Holland where "the flood of 1953" still echoes in the heads of older people even whenever only a storm is predicted.
Not to mention about the impact of seeing such a terrible disaster as caused by hurricane katrina. Such dark and tragic days should Unite people and put issues like global warming on the agenda. We only have 1 planet earth.

Regional news said today that over the last week phonelines have been very busy , non-stop usa press who are calling to find out how this country below the sealevel has survived storms through the years.
If you're interested to read that - go here:

http://www.deltawerken.com/Floods/22.html

Rudi