new blog: Are we being realistic about New Orleans?

[gkhouston]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

I'm inclined to agree. I expect New Orleans will be rebuilt, but at a different location. Frankly, I don't think there will be much choice: I'm afraid the levees to the Mississippi are going to give way and the landscape there will be redefined. :scared:

Given how long it's going to take to pump out New Orleans and that it's already getting toxic, I'm wondering what they're going to do: are they going to pump out New Orleans and then do remediation on all of Lake Ponchartrain or could they contain the worst of the toxins in New Orleans and do the remediation there? I'm beginning to wish I hadn't dozed through some meetings in the past.

Is it just me or does it seem like Homeland Security and FEMA are doing a piss-poor job of handling the situation in NOLA? Granted, they've got massive numbers of people to rescue, but couldn't they get some boats in there, even if they have to ask residents in neighboring unaffected areas to bring flat-bottomed boats, a la Dunkirk? And jeez, could they at least bring in some drinking water?

[SharonRB]

1. gk -- I have to agree with him, too

I don't see them rebuilding in the foreseeable future. I hate to be pessimistic, but the water situation seems almost insurmountable. Damage like that in Florida or other places from this and other hurricanes is one thing -- physical damage can be rebuilt. It's the water and the toxicity from the chemicals and dead bodies, etc. that makes it seem such an impossible task.

I feel so incredibly awful for all of these people -- this was way beyond their control and there's no relief in sight for them. I'm so angry at * and the rest of the administration because so much of this could have been prevented had they been able to reinforce the levees if * hadn't taken the money away to send it to Iraq.

I could go on and on, but you get my drift.

[gkhouston]

2. it would be easier for them to leave the water, declare it a toxic

site that they gradually detoxify, and rebuild upstream than it would to do a crash course remediation. They're going to have to raze it to the ground and start again if they rebuild at the present location and if they do that, they might as well bring in a lot of fill and elevate the city -- which they might do.

[crispini]

3. I read the first paragraph and honestly I can't bear to read anymore.

:cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:

[WolverineDG]

4. Given that LA has the most lax environmental regs

I wouldn't go anywhere near NO for a long long time.... :cry:

I keep hearing news about what's really going on at the Superdome & I'm going nuts. This happening in the "richest nation in the world?" My God, it's becoming Hell on Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dg

[Berry Cool]

5. Keith was right about the toxic soup in New Orleans, but...

...one element he didn't point out that has been added to that toxic soup is guns. Plenty of them. Free and easy to get.

We've got more than chemical and organic poison contaminating that region.

We are finally going to find out what America is like when anyone can get a gun anytime they want, and use it any way they want. Because that is what the situation is down there now. And it is chaos.

[Gogi]

6. No, we're not. Consider this:

When's the last time this country built anything large and important? Japan has created an island airport, Malaysia has the Petronas Towers, England and France co-operated on the Chunnel, and Switzerland just built the world's longest bridge. Now what do we have? A proposed Alaska bridge to nowhere, a hole in the ground where the twin towers once stood, assorted stadiums being built with a mixture of public/ private monies and skyscrapers being built with private money. Hell, we can't even properly maintain the last huge government construction project: the Interstate Highway System!