Well, that was the estimate in 2005. I'm looking for what has actually been spent. Still looking.
I think if a hurricane did hit, I think it would be pretty shaky political ground to cross honestly.
If you try to say "This is what climate change does blah blah" You could be percieved as exploiting the people for your message to get elected.
We shall see, I don't really see how a hurricane can satisfy either one.
This is true, but as the water saturated ground dries out over time, the level of the land only sinks so much. The area that is below sea level probably won't sink much farther. The solution would be to build more than 15 ft. above sea level then. I'm sure there are some qualified engineers out there who can predict the proper range of any farther sinking.
I don't think that's the solution. I am a firm believe hat no matter how well the levees are built, they will fail at some time.
I don't think there has to be anything said for it to help one party or another. I personally feel that higher gas prices helps Obama. A hurricane wrecking offshore drilling surely helps Obama. I think without a doubt that New Orleans part 2 helps Obama because it brings up one of the worst failures in Bush's time.
Higher gas prices may help McCain actually, but if they're do to offshore oil being hurt then Obama probably benefits.
And thats all without either of them saying a word. The 527s will do the talking in any case.
Yeah, I'm obviously not smart enough to interpret which way it would help or not.
There is no solid consensus on all the causes of the sinking, but they have measured the sinking by satellite and found that some areas are sinking as much as an inch a year.
It might be the least costly thing to do while the causes of and solutions for the sinking are found.I don't think that's the solution. I am a firm believe hat no matter how well the levees are built, they will fail at some time.
Filling New Oreleans with sand dirt or any other substance is extremely impractical. I'm not sure of the cost, but you'd have to level everything and start again. I'm fairly certain this is not a pratical and thereby feasible solution.
They need to start restoring the marshlands to begin with. They do far more for flood protection than any levees.
It's sad to think that the possibility of the destruction of a major city could be politically advantageous to anyone, and I'd certainly hope: (a) that Gustav will be a fairly weak hurricane that brings only minimal damage with it, wherever it might strike; and (b) that whatever happens, the immediate concerns of Americans will be addressing whatever problems the hurricane might create before playing political games with any effects the storm might create. Few things have pissed me off more than the political gibberish that was going on while we all watched televised pictures of people stranded on rooftops, if they managed to avoid the fate of dying in their attics. Solve the problems, then worry about the blame. Hopefully, if the worst happens, the lessons of Katrina will be used to benefit the people immediately affected by the storm and there is no political hay to be made of the situation.
Therein ends my plea for sanity.
Why pile on something that continues to sink?
Marshlands restoration is one of the viable solutions, but you're talking a 50-100 year project to realize results.
Sadly, you know both candidates will be in NO (should it happen again) the day the sun comes out afterward. Obama's political machine will probably have him out in a boat rescuing people or some other symbolic bull like that.
I know. And I'm sure if Obama is rescuing people in boats, McCain will be doing something similar.
I think its the superficial politicization of suffering that I despise.
If you want to be compassionate to those who are suffering, solve their problems.
Agreed. I'm sure it will be a race for who can stand up first and say that they will build a new levy in New Orleans capable of withstanding a cat 10 or something.
FYI they used sand dredged up from the bay to build up Galveston.
FWIW I started the thread as a discussion on passive effects of any situation like this. Regardless of active campaigning an event like this would obviously have political ramifications. I may be cynical, but I don't think either candidate would have the gall to use a disaster as a direct campaign tool.
I do however, think the 527s would put up ads saying things. Its a double edged sword though. This woudl not be typical negative campaigning.
And as I type this Wolf Blitzer brings up Gustav. Its going to be a factor. It just is.
Come on Manny, there is going to be all kinds of plays by Camp Obama about how the Republican White House did nothing to prevent this from happening again, McCain wouldn't either, they'd play the race card for the 400th time this campaign, and Obama would be giving another one of his hollow speeches about hope and change from the roof of some flooded home in the 9th Ward.
. . . while McCain spoke about the need to drill from a balcony in the French Quarter.
Obama wouldn't have to, but McCain would be under a TON of pressure to differentiate himself from the Bush approach to Katrina. And honestly I don't think anything he could say or do would keep it from being a boost for the Obama campaign.
On the other hand, if America was attacked by terrorists before the election, Obama would be under the same kind of pressure while McCain wouldn't really have to say anything.
I hate to reduce it like this but when there are natural disasters, people look to the government to help them and that benefits Democrats. When there are foreign threats or attacks, people look to the government to protect them (and/or fight back) and that benefits the Republicans. It's not always the most rational reaction either way, but disasters and attacks don't usually inspire a lot of rationality.
would it surprise anyone if there were a desperate attack on american soil just before the election?
We heard that in 2004 too.
We also have a city sinking. Baytown close to Houston. Some parts have sunk 10 feet.
http://baytownsun.com/story.lasso?ewcd=9c54822bbab27e94
Your facts are pretty dated. Subsidence in Baytown was a 1970's and 1980's phenomenon.
Subsidence there was caused largely by underground wells for drinking water that sucked the water table down. That's why all the cities around Houston switched to surface water in the 1980's.
The real tragedy is that everybody, including presidents from both parties, knew that the levees were in need of serious updating for a very long time, and the issue was never thoroughly tackled. For a much smaller investment than what is currently needed, New Orleans could have been spared the enormous suffering it has had to endure, and taxpayers could've been spared the many-times-worse costs that they've been forced to s out since, not to mention lost revenues in tax dollars, disruption of citizens' lives, etc. The most frustrating thing to me is that it hardly registers as a news story anymore, despite the fact that the entire city could still be re-destroyed by another category 3 storm due to the fact that the progress on modernizing the levies has been slow and seemingly not a top national priority.
Last edited by Tully365; 08-27-2008 at 02:54 PM.
I don't know how to respond to this. Whether they do or not, it will be interpreted as such. They will be expected to address the issue, and it's campaign season. Just how do you separate such things?
i'm personally starting the countdown of 365 days if and when Obamessiden takes office.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
