God hates Kansas

"God love everyone equally - he does not discriminate"

Unlike his acolytes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mlott @ May 9 2007, 12:30 PM) [snapback]438358[/snapback]</div>

If you live in Africa and your hut blows down and you lose all your stuff, I feel for you, hope you are safe, hope you can find your stuff somehow.

If you are in California living on the quake fault and an earthquake hits you, I feel for you, hope you are safe, and if you are insured, I think you should get paid. I don't think the fed should buy you new stuff. If you are uninsured, I don't think the fed should buy you new stuff. You're aware of the game up front, if you don't move out or insure, then too bad.

If you are in New Orleans and a hurricane or 60 day rain storm or for some reason you get washed out of your house, I feel for you, hope you are safe, and if you have your junk insured, I think you should get paid. I don't think the fed should buy you new stuff whether you are insured or not. You also know the gamble and you can move out now or in some way plan ahead... because you and I both know, it's coming again... one day or the other. You're worse than the californians for planning ahead because you can see it coming for a week in advance. At least in the earthquake, there is no immediate prior warning, other than everyone on earth knowing it's going to happen someday.

I live in a place where tornado's hit. I'm aware of that. I have insurance. I built a shelter in my basement, I'm planning on putting a server in the shelter so if the house burns or blows away, I'll have my digital pictures and data.

Wherever you live.. could be calamity... plan for it and the rest of us are not responsible to pay for your losses.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ May 10 2007, 12:00 PM) [snapback]439210[/snapback]</div>

I think you forgot to read it, or decided to not understand it.

If you want to spend your earnings on insurance to protect your stuff, then you can be paid if the storm comes and your stuff gets wacked. You can choose rather to buy a new xbox with your earnings and not insure any of your stuff, and when it gets wacked, it's gone... too bad... Either way, you're not all of our problem.

If you're poor, then you probably can't afford to have a bunch of crap that you expect me and the tax payers to replace if it gets flooded. Fine.

If you're above that, and you spend your money on junk, when you could have been paying for insurance, then too friggin bad if it gets swept down river.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ May 10 2007, 01:40 PM) [snapback]439262[/snapback]</div>

i think we are arriving at the equation of what is the individual citizen is responsible for vs what is society responsible for. There is no shortage of answers depending upon which environment the question is being raised - rich, poor, educated or not, etc -.

I believe that the individual bears a lot of responsibility for themselves and their actions and their decisions including where they live and how they allocate their resources including the purchase of insurance etc. There are "acts of God" that we as a society must be prepared to help out with too. With regards to New Orleans (where my brother and his familiy just went down to on a mission of charity giving - of course we donated) my opinion as an American who does not live there is that they have had their fair warning now. People who decide to stay there must now bear a greater % of the God forbid next "Katrina". I do not think it wise to put people in harms way and try to fight what I believe is an impossible and costly battle - eventually Mother Nature will hit again and will surpass all man-made defenses. There are areas I am sure that are better to rebuild and there are areas that I am sure should be left devoid of human habitation.

I would also favor some sort of system where the leadership of that city is taken out of the equation with the next impending storm - Mayor Nagrin absolutely and positively FAILED the city in every conceivable way.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ May 10 2007, 02:40 PM) [snapback]439262[/snapback]</div>

I think that you should read up on what happened in New Orleans. The hurricane did not destroy the city. It was the breeches in the levee that flooded the city. The levees were not built properly by the Corp of Engineers. I have read that a lot of other places in the country have sub-standard levees. They were surveyed after our flooding. So, when the levees out west fail, will you have pity?

You should also read up on the insurance companies and how they are treating their customers. I hope that your area doesn't end up with a major disaster - because the insurance companies will use every trick to get out of paying people.

As I said earlier, I didn't flood. New Orleans hadn't flooded in 40+ years - and wouldn't not have flooded this time if it were not for the mistakes of the Corp of Engineers. Do your research before ignorantly bashing New Orleans.

Has anyone read my link to the local newspaper? The editorial referenced the recent topographical surveys of the New Orleans metro area and found that less than half of the city is below sea level. The news media is deceiving you into thinking that Katrina flooded the city. The city would NOT have flooded if the levees had not failed. The storm did NOT over-top the levees. The levees were badly designed and badly constructed. This is a warning to the rest of the country. Levees all over the country are in danger of failing. BEWARE.
Do the research.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mlott @ May 10 2007, 02:03 PM) [snapback]439271[/snapback]</div>

My understanding was that it was not just the Corps fault - tens of millions of $'s earmarked for the levees found their way to other things instead of being invested in them. I also understand that construction codes and concepts change over the decades. I also understand that local support of the infrastructure like pumps etc was not maintained as it should have been. I also understand emergency evacuation planning and placement of people was not up to snuff. To blame the Corp alone I think is unfair. There is enough blame to go around New Orleans several times.

I for one American will not be willing to invest another several hundred billion $'s into New Orleans in my lifetime. Once is fair - and mind you I am still donating to victims there - so i am not a cold hearted northerner. if you guys want to stay there and fight nature with your money including taxes - cool. God Bless and good luck.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 10 2007, 03:10 PM) [snapback]439289[/snapback]</div>

This is not a case of construction codes changing. The levees were not built by the Corp of Engineers to the then existing code. The pumps have nothing to do with flooding - that's a red herring. People did evacuate - property would have still been destroyed with or with out people present - yet another red herring.

The MRGO (Mississippi River Gulf Outlet) failed - it was forced on the area by Washington. The 17th street canal
did not even have its foundation sunk to below sea level - another failure of the feds. The feds controlled all the monies - so, if it was diverted as you claim, who do I blame?

I seem to recall that rarely, hurricanes reach New York. When it floods, what should I feel?
I really hate the blame attitude of people. Look at the history and age of this city. research the economic impact of its loss, and then tell us not to rebuild and that we are on our own.
Until then, you all can....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mlott @ May 10 2007, 12:53 PM) [snapback]439271[/snapback]</div>

It's been my opinnion for more than 20 years that NO would get wacked. I lived in Montana, Utah and Illinois and visited NO once in about 1998 or 1999. That whole time, I thought it would get washed out to sea. You have to be an idiot to not see that, and I'm willing to concede that you probably didn't see it coming, and probably don't realize the potential for it to happen again.

I first thought it would get wacked when the Mississippi River was bulging back in the day, then later on after seeing some hurricanes come around.. I figured one or the other would take that whole city out to sea.

And, it pretty much did. It will happen again. We all know it will. And, we SHOULD be leaving it up to you to put up with it. Spend your money how you like... on insurance, xbox, beer, smokes, bigger pumps, building wider levees, make a water proof house, buy insurance, buy a boat, do whatever you think you need to do... When the hurricane is coming to town, feel free to stay home, or evacuate, or whatever, still not my problem.

Too bad I can't place good money in vegas that in 5 years, when NO gets wacked again, everyone will act surprised and be whining at the federal govt for payment and why didn't you save us, etc... If I could get 20:1 odds on that, it'd be worth it.

Get out now, go to higher ground, make your life elsewhere.

Oh... wait, NO is a welfare city, waiting for a handout (build us a levee), a rescue (we're standing on top of our house because we didn't evacuate as told), and a giveaway (give us visa cards with 2000 for buying porn). You must be so proud, what a rich city.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mlott @ May 10 2007, 02:03 PM) [snapback]439271[/snapback]</div>

We have levees and dams up north as well- not to the same extent as New Orleans, of course. In the fall of 2005, people were evacuated from the city of Taunton, MA, as an old dam there was in danger of collapsing. If it had, much of the city would have been flooded. There are potential disasters all over the country.

 

Wait...I thought God just hated Kansas...are you saying God hates New Orleans as well? Does this mean He hates just some places?


Here is the deal: Where ever you live, can be hit by natural disasters. Some worse then others. And some people can afford to move; others can't. If you have the means to move, and don't like your odds, then move. It's up to you.

I do feel sorry for those that get stuck in natures way, and can't move. And that is where I think our bloated federal government should be helping. But it won't. It can't. It's spending billions of our tax dollars, and future generations tax dollars, on a war it can't win.

So, I don't think God hates Kansas or New Orleans. But I wonder if our government cares at all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mlott @ May 9 2007, 07:12 PM) [snapback]438668[/snapback]</div>

Unfounded? Only you can say. But, generally it's the guilty who need most to defend themselves.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mlott @ May 9 2007, 07:12 PM) [snapback]438668[/snapback]</div>

Q.E.D.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ May 10 2007, 11:45 AM) [snapback]439323[/snapback]</div>

I like what you had to say.

There are a number of factors invloved with risk mitigation and I know it is wrong to blame the people and use simple blanket statements to categorize these very complex problems. There is a level of frustration that makes it so hard for me to not be angered at situations like this. We spend crazy amounts of money on rediculous idealogies and material goods yet we "canot afford" to properly investigate, plan, and take action to reduce the devestation brought on by natural disasters in highly populated urban areas. IMO it is just another case of caring about the wrong stuff then getting slapped in the %$# because you were not prepared for the door that was slamming shut.

Because of this thread I studied the causes and effects of disasters such as these in New Orleans and especially developing countries and I have a better understanding of the complexities involved. This does not change my opinion that the relucatance of the people to place themselves out of harms way (and organize themselves to educate each other and create plans of action) is the biggest problem but local government decisions do play a large role as well as national government and those communities upriver.

The following is an excerpt from one of my books: World Watch Institute - State of the World 2007 (Our Urban Future)

"As the population of many cities around the world continues to soar, the vulnerability of their infrastructure and inhabitants will grow as well unless measures are consciously taken to avoid a " business-as-usual" approach to disaster risk management."

"Urban disaster risk reduction goes hand-in-hand with the aims of poverty reduction, and it can easily be linked to international efforts to achieve a better standard of living for the growing number of urban dwellers struggling to make ends meet. A central tenet of slum improvements, for example, should be the locally appropriate provision of better sanitation and shelter, improvements that will prevent small scale natural hazards from sparking urban disasters."

"Among the myriad other actions that governments, organizations, businesses, and individuals should set as priorities to reduce disaster risk are the following:"

• Foster a "culture of prevention" where disaster preventio, preparedness, and mitigations are streamlined into all planning and budgeting processes.

• Direct special attention to the urban poor in developing countries-those who are at most risk. Focus efforts that will work simultaneously toward poverty alleviation and sustainable development.

• Protect and enhance environmenta assets as a means of risk reduction. Take climate change seriously, as millions of people are already at risk because of it.

• If a city, neighborhood, business, or family has not already done so, plan ahead. Any disaster management and planning done prior to the onset of a natural hazard will give those affected a crucial head start on recovery.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 10 2007, 03:47 PM) [snapback]439328[/snapback]</div>

I wasn't defending myself. I don't fee guilty and don't need to defend myself.
This is what I said:

I don't have much of posting history, therefore your implication about my views on the war was unfounded.
I can now say that I do not respect your responses in this thread. You do not reflect kindly on SF or CA with your comments.
And I did see your tasteless post about a avatars. You should be ashamed of yourself posting that on a site that can be viewed by minors.
That post goes a long way in showing the respect that you deserve.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ May 10 2007, 03:32 PM) [snapback]439311[/snapback]</div>

When are you going to move? Chicago freezes every year. I have seen on the news that people up north need help with heating - every year. People die from freezes every year. Or do you just have special scorn for the south? Are you going to post that people in CA need to move because of fire or mud slides?

I just looked at CNN.com and some Missouri is flooding with levee breeches. I recall just warning about the levees around the country in a prior post before I saw the CNN news. Did you read my link?
Did anyone read my link?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ May 10 2007, 01:29 PM) [snapback]439442[/snapback]</div>

With risk analysis experience world wide with Lloyd's and other reinsurance groups, there is no effort to depopulate "tornado alley." Rather, there is the realization that we should not reinforce stupid behavior, such as living on a flood plain. Structures in tornado alley should be constructed appropriate to the geographical constraints of the area.

Ideally, structures in tornado areas should be earth-bermed and roofed, so that tornadoes just "go over the top", but this isn't suitable for every structure (i.e., a 10-story business), but is highly suitable for most homes. The only additional protective feature is metal shutters that can be closed over windows.

Earth-berming makes cost-effective sense: warmer in winter, cooler in summer, less of a "fly-wheel" effect between temperature extremes, very quiet; can take advantage of passive solar heating; less exterior maintenance, and more. California has adapted to fire and earthquakes, certainly tornado alley can adapt to mesocyclones (thunderstorms that produce tornadoes), blizzards and other extreme weather.

It is far more cost-effective to acknowledge the capital costs and potentials up front that complaining and crying after a "natural" disaster that could have been avoided by advance planning.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ May 10 2007, 02:02 PM) [snapback]439464[/snapback]</div>

I agree completely. My original arguement was that we should not be living in these areas anyway or at least not in large population densities. When we "must" live there the we need to take cues from natural design and create communities that can withstand that regions particular natural events with minimal loss of life and property AND not inhibiting ANY natural processes or ecosystems. It can be done if we want it to be done. Tha is where the "transformation between the ears" comes into play.

I know full well the problems my area of California could face if climate change occurs the way models seem to suggest. Luckily the work I do and the subjects I study educate me on these processes. I hope that I can someday help my communities to prepare and prevent such disasters from happening. Actually, all of my watershed work for Sacramento and Placer County was doing just that. We restore wetlands and protect our riperian habitats and fight against urban sprawl in sensitive areas.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ May 10 2007, 06:20 PM) [snapback]439480[/snapback]</div>

Do you think that New York should be moved also?

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050...icane_1938.html

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/38hurr...ane_future.html

Or is bashing about hurricanes on for those of us in the South?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mlott @ May 11 2007, 12:06 AM) [snapback]439657[/snapback]</div>