I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
On 31 Aug 2005 06:09:12 -0700,
, in
. com wrote:
+
+ I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
+ On 30 Aug 2005 20:11:49 -0700,
+ Vast Left Wing Conspiracy , in
+ .com wrote:
+
+ + In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of
+ + Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal
+ + funding.
+
+ + More incompentence from the Chimp In Chief.
+
+ Perhaps the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy would care to comment how
+ proposed budget cuts for the 2006-2007 fiscal year will affect the
+ ACoE in August 2005?
+ As a member of the Vast Moderate Conspiracy, the point is that
+ at any time it is short sighted to cut funds intended to prevent
+ or ameliorate disasters, IMO.
Would you care to place a wager on those proposed cuts seeing the
light of day again?
It depends on politics. IIRC Newton said something about being able
to predict the course of the moon but not the irrationality of men.
+ Of course, it was short sighted
+ to put a major city where New Orleans is, but the failings of
+ our ancestors do not pardon us for the same failings.
Well, now that the city is essentially in ruins it would behoove us to
move the city, yes? yes, I know, I'm fantasizing.
Oh, well. One could hope.
James
Yes, I've been wondering how much damage it would take for people
to decide it is cheaper in the long run to rebuild the whole place
on higher (of course, sea level would be higher) ground. Some
small towns did it after the Midwest floods in 1993, but I doubt
if they'll do that with New Orleans. They rebuilt San Fancisco
in the same place after all. If insurance companies demand it,
it might happen I suppose, but unless a clause like that is in
the policies already, all they could do is refuse to insure the
new construction in the future. They might do that just as risk
control. IIRC some companies pulled out of Florida after Andrew.
Cheers,
Russell