In light of the recent disaster perhaps some re-zoning is in order. The reason the delta isn't depositing silt that would otherwise protect the NO area is that shipping lanes have been carved out of the river bed, and the silt gets deposited out to sea instead. Also, more shipping lanes have been carved through the marshy areas, increasing erosion.
Sure spurious. Whatever you say. Your melodramatic attacks are the most enjoyable on this website. I love watching you act like you're person of importance, and not just a part of the debate. Which, of course, there never is with you. You're like a two year old little girl throwing a tantrum in public. It's just political discourse. Just a conversation. It'll be okay. When you turn off the computer, spurious, the world will go on even if I post stuff you don't agree with. Just keep repeating this to yourself: "It's just a website. Superstring really isn't going to hurt me by posting his opinions." You'll find peace in understanding in the realization that my lack of importance is exactly the same as yours. ~String
So should we make everyone who lives along the mississipi move, so we don't have to pay for any future flood damage? Should we make everyone who lives on an active fault in California move, so we don't have to pay for any future earthquake damage? Or how about telling the citizens in Washington who live near Mt. Raineer to move, because the mountain is active? See where I'm going? There's not many safe places to migrate to. The best thing we can do is fix what's broken. We have the money to do it.
I'm not denying that it is a somewhat arbitrary line to draw: New Orleans- evacuate; California- rebuild. But, let's be real-- we are seriously fighting nature in the Delta. It's shifting sands. Again, it's possible to build better buildings that withstand earthquakes... but New Orleans is built on sinking mud while the ocean is rising. I guess it's a matter of making a decision about exactly is worth the effort of rebuilding. Again, if we rezone NO, rebuild the natural barriers, return to nature the vast under-sea-level areas to the swamps that they were, and focus on the above-sea-level areas of historic New Orleans, then I think we'd be doing justice by the American people who are investing serious dollars in that area. ~String
How lovely to see you cannot address the issues and have to resort to personal attacks. Ganymede repeated my point showing its validity. I consider this a clear breach of mod ettiquette.
And did you notice how the conversation between myself and Gany was peaceful? The seeds of descent lie a little closer to home that you think. Did I attack you personally? Or did I just to respond to your usual vacuous remarks about anybody who's opinion you find distasteful or not explained to your own, heretofore undisclosed, levels of expectation. Spurious, you're obviously a smart guy; one's who's smart enough to see the difference between me attacking you personally and me clarifying in vibrant language what I think of your actions. You're whole querulous nature now smacks of solipsism-- you're obviously unawares of what's going on around you. Allow me to be more direct: I merely explained to you EXACTLY what you seem to forget whenever I see you address an opponent: there is no need to talk down to everybody like they are beneath you. I spelled out my point, originally, without talking down to you. You may not have liked that point or the explanation therein, but I didn't attack you or address it to you, personally. But your entire tone and verbiage was, as usual, belittling. Therefore, I chose to responded in vibrant and descriptive language, exactly how I see your behavior and how I think you should react. Moreover, I wasn't acting in loco modica, rather as a fellow SciForums member who is free and allowed to respond to your incessant flow of shit about those with whom you disagree. As was previously presented to me by numerous other mods: there is a tradition of acrimony in the political fora to which you are no stranger. So don't bother playing the "whoa is me" card. I merely fed you, in industrial strength, that which you so readily feed the rest of us. Rest assured, were I using my magical moderator powers, I would have been PMing you. You broke no rules-- therefore I felt no need to address the situation as such. ~String
I stated my points earlier. I really don't care to argue them any more than what I said: New Orleans should be vastly reduced. It's outskirts should be returned to the bayou. The natural barriers should be rebuilt. The vast majority of the population should be relocated. The historic old city should be preserved for as long as the Mississippi delta will allow it. The only argument against that could possibly be: people want to live there. Which I accept, and certainly, if there is a disaster, troops should be sent in to help them, but not one dime should be spent on rebuilding houses on land that will, probably within my lifetime, be located under a meter of Gulf saltwater. ~String
Monkey ... a few moments of thy time? Spuriousmonkey A word, kind sir? Um ... you know that it's impossible to have a discussion about government and society with people who refuse the basic realities of society, right? I mean, you and I can possibly agree that certain problems, including the health of citizens, become a government's responsibility in the context that general health pertains to the security and prosperity of the nation. We might agree similarly about education. And if we want to split hairs-- "Why is it always the government's job to fix what nature corrects and what people screw up in their own life?" --we can always point out that people are part of nature, although that's just a bit nitpickety, I confess. Now, even I admit that certain sentiments toward the land are just a bit ridiculous. Maybe if New Orleans stood for another few centuries I might give over to the "ancestral" or "traditional' argument, but it seems to me that if it's not a government's job to get involved when we lose a freakin' city, there's no point to government at all. It's a city. In addition to the people, the city itself contributes certain things to our national society. Did gas prices go up in the U.S. after we lost a major petroleum distribution point? Yes. Was trade in general disrupted by the loss of a major port? Yes. Now, regardless of how stupid it was to build a city in the middle of a freakin' swamp, there is still the reality of what to do about the fact that we lost New Orleans. Perhaps you and I can agree on such points. Those who refuse the interrelationship 'twixt government and society may have a harder time considering such impacts. They tend to personalize it, make it about the government taking care of people and pampering people, and all manner of arguments intended to compel righteous anger at victims. Our human compassion is one thing, but it is government's job to make sure that the structures that support human beings in our society remain functional. I would propose that it might be worth giving a moment's consideration as to whether or not it's worth the headache to argue with people who think this kind of blow to American society is not worth the government's attention. We lost a city, and they say, "Why is it government's job ...?"
You are sadly right. Not sadly because I do not want you to be right, but sadly because it signifies the lack of moral social fiber that can make a society just right. The family is not the corner stone of society; the guy you don't know and lives in a swamp is. We all are! I will go on a slight tangent now to come back to New Orleans in the end. I was very pleased to recently discover that you can approach the constitution of a nation in different ways. You can amend it and try to fix what is broken. Or you rewrite it so it can be used to make a society, as in a real society, and not a collection of individuals. I was even more pleased to learn that a constitution written with building a society in mind gives a competitive advantange. See for instance the thread on Internet speeds and information technology. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=70996 What I am trying to say, very badly I admit, is that nothing is stopping us from building a tight society where all can enjoy life and security; except the attitude of people. The American social environment is indeed capable of creating the social mindset. This is clear from examples, yourself for instance. However, the social mindset does not seem standard. And indeed it is rather pointless to go into these discussions as you point out. It's a bit of a personal character flaw that I do so. But I do know after reading some constitutions, after seeing how a constitution can influence a society, after seeing how the mindset of people influences society, that there is a valid and interesting discussion possible here. And maybe it is unfortunate that only a few people can share the wealth that is being opened up, and others see this as a who has the biggest penis contest, however, this does not change the fact that seemingly unrelated threads are all coming together. And that is because social ideology determines every aspect of life. All that happens in a society is related. And problems can sometimes not be solved by trying to solve the problem. The cause can lie much deeper. The cause affects many aspects of society. And without addressing the real deeper cause we are merely trying to put out a barn-fire by spitting at it. And the constitution is one place to try to fix what is broken. However, I do not think social change will take place in the USA any time soon because of how the society is currently structured. It is a system designed to redirect the attention of people to false focuses of attention. As for New Orleans I do not understand the negative attitude as has been displayed here. Maybe that is because in Europe New Orleans has always been seen as one of the greatest cities in the USA. One of the few cities worth while of visiting. An unique city. The birthplace of an important part of American culture. A place with an unique culture. You cannot put a price on that!
Apparently we are moving towards a more clinical view of the world; one where abortion is performed postnatally on a people based on convenience and after a look at the balance sheet.
But that's not it at all. I'm not all about saying, "WELL, mother nature has spoken!" In this case it's obviously clear that a lot of things went wrong in the pseudo rescue effort. But after all the dust has settled, it's still debatable whether or not the city should be rebuilt. ~String
Yes the only argument that might be valid is that people might want to live there, but that don't seem to be the case or they would have returned and started rebuilding with out government help, how great was the living there if it took massive government subsidies to let the people live there in the first place? Hell if someone else was paying most of my bills there are a lot of places that I would live, even New Orleans, but since I have to pay my own way I choose a place that is not in a flood plain, I have insurance that covers my house, and I have more Insurance that covers for the things my normal insurance doesn't cover, I keep trying to save because what the government returns to me of my own money is only about .50 cents on the dollar, and I still think I will see Social Security collapse into total bankruptcy, now why didn't most of the people in New Orleans follow this way of life? it is called planning, and it seems like thy failed the 6- P's, Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance, and the performance of the people themseselves was piss poor, let alone the City of New Orleans, the Parish, the State of Louisiana, and the Democrats want to blame the Bush administration? Security starts with the person, and works up from there, the Disaster Planning starts at the City level, first, then when they can't handle it the County is requested to come in, when the County can't handle it the State is requested to come in, when it become to big for the State they have to request the Nation to come in, and during the whole Katrina Disaster the State of Louisiana had their head up their ass, and were a dollar short ( Due to the Graft and Corruption, and Kick Backs, a Democratic controlled state at all levels) and a Day late in doing what they were suppose to do by law for the Disaster Plan to work and be implemented.
Take lots of balls to politician to present a solution like what String offers. So it was easier to fuck up and let things to be fucked up, is that the case ? Just a side note.
