Huh. You took that Murray line as skepticism? I always took it as "no human would be so stupid as to stack forty or so books high."

But now that you mention it, twenty-two years later, I finally get the joke.

Thanks.

(The only thing creepier than Bob Cesca, is a picture of Bob Cesca.)

Gutfeld is my hero.

You guys keep forgetting Halliburton. I think they are to blame somewhere down the line.

Halliburton is based in Houston. Where are all the refugees being moved? Houston. Where will all the emergency funds to feed and house these people be spent? Houston. What company will get the contracts for new drilling to replace the production lost due to the hurricane? Halliburton.

Halliburton and Houston. Perfect together.

[this is a parody]

One would think that linking Global Warming with the warming of the waters in the Gulf of Mexico and the increase in hurricane activity/strength would be a normal piece of reasoning unless one doesn't like the conclusion.

.
Gutfield is my new hero! "Bonus Points for a Kennedy issuing blame over an event that involved drowning." (Was Mary Jo Kepechne available for comment?)

And "He can provide displaced citizens with fresh sheets." Priceless!

One would think that linking Global Warming with the warming of the waters in the Gulf of Mexico and the increase in hurricane activity/strength would be a normal piece of reasoning unless one doesn't like the conclusion.

Unless, of course, the facts don't actually fit that conclusion.

More here.

What the table US Hurricane Strikes by Decade shows is that the US has been very lucky, not that the incidence and power of hurricanes is decreasing.

A Time Magazine article states:
From 1995 to 1999, a record 33 hurricanes struck the Atlantic basin, and that doesn’t include 1992’s horrific Hurricane Andrew, which clawed its way across south Florida in 1992, causing $27 billion dollars worth of damage. ... But hurricane-scale storms occur all over the world, and in some places—including the North Indian ocean and the region near Australia—the number has actually fallen. Even in the U.S., the period from 1991 to 1994 was a time of record hurricane quietude, with the dramatic exception of Andrew.
...
But even if all these variables have combined to keep the number of hurricanes worldwide about the same, the storms do appear to be more intense. One especially sobering study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that hurricane wind speeds have increased about 50% in the past 50 years. And since warm oceans are such a critical ingredient in hurricane formation, anything that gets the water warming more could get the storms growing worse.

According to the NOAA Atlantic Hurricane Outlook Update for 2005:
NOAA is calling for a 95% to 100% chance of an above-normal 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, according to a consensus of scientists at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center (CPC), Hurricane Research Division (HRD), and National Hurricane Center (NHC). This forecast reflects NOAA’s highest confidence of an above-normal hurricane season since their outlooks began in August 1998.
...
Beginning with 1995 all of the Atlantic hurricane seasons have been above normal, with the exception of two El Niño years (1997 and 2002). This contrasts sharply with the generally below-normal activity observed during the previous 25-year period 1970-1994 (Goldenberg et al. 2001, Science).
...
Hurricane seasons during 1995-2004 have averaged 13.6 tropical storms, 7.8 hurricanes, 3.8 major hurricanes, and with an average ACE index of 159% of the median. NOAA classifies all but two of these ten seasons (El Niño years of 1997 and 2002) as above normal, and six of these years as hyperactive. If the 2005 season verifies as predicted, it will be the seventh hyperactive season in the last 11 years.

The NOAA assessment does tie this to a normal "multi-decadal variability, with alternating periods lasting several decades of generally above-normal or below-normal activity" rather than global warming. However, seven out of 11 years being classed as "hyperactive" is I believe out of the norm of multi-decadal variability.

I caused the biblical flood...

I also organized the sacking of the Alexandria library.

Bwaaaha aha ha "...I was there when Jesus Christ had his moment of doubt... ...rode a tank had a generals rank... when the bodies stank..."

However, seven out of 11 years being classed as "hyperactive" is I believe out of the norm of multi-decadal variability.

I guess you know better than NOAA.

I guess you know better than NOAA.

Ace, that would be a normal piece of reasoning unless one doesn't like the conclusion.

Ummm...if you notice I'm citing NOAA.

Yes, but then you go on to reject their conclusions, because you, of course, are a trained meterologist and climatologist.

Either that, or you just reject the science you don't like in favor of your preferred political narrative.

Not sure which. Let me know.

We've gone round this mulberry bush before, but liberals (such as yourself) like to cite scientific authority and castigate conservatives for rejecting the "scientific consensus" on global warming.

But of course you do the same thing.

Similar to how liberals scream about "Respecting precedent!" when it comes to decisions they favor, and castigate conservatives for having no respect for precedent.

But then they agitate for and ultimately celebrate the overturning of precedents they don't like.

I guess I would just prefer more honesty on such points, rather than having liberals forever claim to be basing their beliefs on neutral principles and external sources.

Actually, I think it was fires in Florida that the Gorebot linked to global warming.

Gore linked pretty much everything to global warming. A few years ago, we had a bad ice storm up here. Gore's reaction?

Yup...

"We live in a time in our country and the world where it seems weather catastrophes are more common. We now have 100-year floods every two years, it seems," Gore told Maine lawmakers, according to The Boston Globe.

The ice storm that crippled Maine "could be a sign of things to come," given global warming, he said.

An ice storm. Caused by global warming.

The NOAA assessment I cited doesn't speak to global warming at all, so I am not rejecting their expertise. What I am doing is assuming, given various administration strongarming of scientific conclusions at variance to their faith based policies, that NOAA would not mention global warming as a possible additional reason for the uptick in hurricane activity/intensity; so I read between the lines.

Check out this table. Note that 11 of the 65 most intense hurricanes to strike the US in the last 153 years (not including the current 2005 season) have been in the last 20 years and that 6 of those have been in the last 10 years (again not including 2005). To ridicule those of us who believe that global warming is a serious issue making the connection to hurricanes is rank hackery.

vonKreedon:
The table you link is not the best data to use, since it only lists hurricanes which struck the US mainland, and ranks them by their intensity when they reached land. This does't really give us any insight into the frequency or peak strengths of hurricanes worldwide.

Speculating that the increasing frequency of hurricances is due to global warming is fine, but it isn't science.

So I guess global warming was worse in 1969, when Camille hit, than it was from 1970-1994, right?

Dang, one zinger after another.

Another thing worth checking out is the influence of the Mount Pinatubo eruption (6/12/1991) on global temperatures. Pinatubo had a demonstable effect in lowering global temperatures. If you start your measurements in the early 90's, you're not really measuring global warming as commonly contemplated, but the normal return to average from a volcano-induced cooling.

It would also be useful for the global warming fear-mongers to quantify the exact average measured-temperatures and their changes over time. Temperatures over land don't necessarily map very well to hurricane formulation, so it might be best to take average ocean temperatures at various altitudes and water depths. Once those temperatures are known, then science might be able to lead us to whether the amounts of differences and the trends map very well to effects on hurricane frequency and intensity.

Or we could just cut to the chase and blame the whole thing on Bush who has only been in office for four and a half years ("The Day After Tomorrow", and all that doncha know).

Von Cretin must be correct, haven't you ever seen The Day After Tommorrow?

Ah, actors! Is there anything they don't know?

Bush didn't cause the hurricane.

Bush caused the systematic dismantling and severe underfunding that led to the underpreparedness, and poorly maintained levee. Don't believe me?

Read this:
http://tinyurl.com/as299

That's for the FEMA angle. Other bloggers have pulled up the sequence of events about the Bush admin pinpointing the funding for the New Orleans area, AFTER A REPORT WAS ISSUED WITH HURRICANE HITTING NEW ORLEANS AS #2 DISASTER OUT OF THREE to prepare for. PDB: hurricane determined to attack New Orleans.

Of course, if they had known the exact DATE and LOCATION, well they would have been prepared... Oh, they DID know that?

Incidentally, regarding a post above: in the lake effect area around the Great Lakes, warmer winters DO cause more snow and ice storms. That's because more of the lake area remains unfrozen longer into the winter, which means more moisture is picked from water (than from ice), and then more frozen precipitation.

Companies in the area have done studies and are budgeting. It's reality, not an ideological position.

"Boldness Points: For a Kennedy issuing blame over an event that involved drowning."

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAA!!! Oh my God...i think i ruptured my kidney.

Incidentally, regarding a post above: in the lake effect area around the Great Lakes, warmer winters DO cause more snow and ice storms.

That's great for Lake Effect storms. The ice storm, however, came from a system that came out of the midwest and was forced into Maine by two high-pressure systems - one near NH and one in the Gulf.

There was no lake effect, just a typical storm that was forced, basically, through a very small channel.

Note that 11 of the 65 most intense hurricanes to strike the US in the last 153 years (not including the current 2005 season) have been in the last 20 years...

Uhhh...(counting on fingers and toes)...hold on...

(continuing the counting on spouse's and pets' fingers and toes)...

...Ok. That would put 54 of them before 20 years ago.

How much you wanna bet that these things don't come in perfect statistical regularity, but in clusters like in the last few years?

And, I might add, all of this was going on loooong before Kyoto, and looong before industrialization.

You really have to be some kind of arrogant to think we can start hurricanes.

Will you at least acknowlege that it is "possible" that one effect of global warming is increasing the tempature of the ocean's surface thus causing bigger, more powerful storms. After spending some time studying the issue I believe the scienctific evidence supports global warming. I'll acknowlege that it is "possible" global warming is all hype. Even the most respected scientists can't account for all the variables involved in global climate change.

My question to you is-Should we gamble and assume that the enviroment is not being effected by the millions of tons of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere?

As I see it-If it turns out that global warming is a real threat (and we have acted to reduce emmisons) we avoided a horrific disaster and saved the planet for the future generations. If global warming is just stacked books we simply have cleaner air and more efficient cars and power plants.

No one can say for certain that Kartina was the result of global warming but should we take the chance that global warming will cause Katrina type storms? Not to mention rising sea levels, drought, permafrost erosion ect.

This is a sincere post. I am really trying to understand the other side of the global warming debate.

Eric:
The downside of dealing with global warming is a little more dire than "we simply have cleaner air and more efficient cars and power plants." If that was the only penalty, who would object to your position? But the fact is that the economic impact would be very severe. So the right believes that we should thoroughly understand the problem before we: 1) tinker with something we don't understand; and 2) cause the economy to tank.

That said, I'd like to see the right take a more proactive stance on energy and the environment, rather than simply objecting to the proposals of the left (the reverse situation of the Iraq war). Politically it would undercut these long-standing planks of the Democrats' platform, and morally, it would be the right thing to do for the country.

That's the thing, Eric, we don't know 1) if global warming is occurring and 2) what causes it if it is.

Behold, the medieval warm period.

Who the fuck know what caused that? They were growing wine grapes in areas you can't grow them today! And that was long before combustion engines.

And what about ice ages? Ice and snow are not, in geologic terms, normal features of Earth. And yet we have snow and glaciers. You might say we are still at the tail end of the last ice age.

Every volcanic eruption spews more gases and particulates in the atmosphere than human beings ever have. And nobody can really say what effect that has, except in the very very short term.

In other words, for all we know, we might even be slowing down the Earth's return to natural temperatures. Who the fuck knows.

I'm not willing to go without heat in the winter to find out, since it could be nothing, or something, a thousand years from now.

Simple physics explains that warmer waters produce larger storms but the release of heat from evaporating water.

The frequency appears to be cyclical as in the chart posted by the moron above that he positioned as PROOF that global warming has no role.

I'm guessing there are quite a few of ID folks on this blog. Firm belief in concepts with no factual basis is what tipped me off.

I think my major problem with the idea of global warming is that advocates of the theory have simply gone too far. Every major meteorological event is now attributed to 'global climate change' and anyone who dares challenge the scientific status quo is regarded a heretic. Consider how Scientific American treated Bjorn Lomborg.

There might be something to the theory. If so, let's take necessary steps to deal with it, but let's do so in a way that doesn't cause the collapse of the American economy. Personally, I would like to see the U.S. move to more nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, though, those who make the most noise about global warming are also the greatest opponents of this option.

By the way, I do appreciate your efforts, Eric, to engage in dialogue rather than write posts like the guy above:

Simple physics explains that warmer waters produce larger storms but the release of heat from evaporating water. The frequency appears to be cyclical as in the chart posted by the moron above that he positioned as PROOF that global warming has no role. I'm guessing there are quite a few of ID folks on this blog. Firm belief in concepts with no factual basis is what tipped me off.

It is this sort of rhetoric that leads to the opposition some of us feel toward the more environmentalist point of view.

This oh-so-brave anonymous poster doesn't seem to realize (or doesn't care) about the damage he's doing to all who share your views.

Who the fuck know what caused that?

Rove has a time machine (along with the weather machine that makes hurricanes, and the geologic disruptor that causes earth quakes).

Monster meteors are on the way as we speak. ETA, next year.

The frequency appears to be cyclical as in the chart posted by the moron above that he positioned as PROOF that global warming has no role.

By the way, Mr. Brave Anonymous Poster, I didn't post the chart as proof. I posted it because I don't think global warming can be used as absolute proof of an increase in hurricane intensity. I wanted to put the actual numbers out there because I believe they cast doubt on the idea that storms are getting worse.

Your post shows that you're more interested in showing off your dubious insult skills than actually engaging in debate.

Global warming may or may not have played a role. Draining wetlands for development deprive nature of its natural ability to absorb and drain floods, this is what you get. When the developer and corporation come a knocking, the government bends over, ignoring environmental impact studies and warnings. We reap what we sow.

Whatever happened to OZONE, that glamorous killer gas of the econuts? Not trendy enough for the cultural elite?

Simple physics explains that warmer waters produce larger storms but the release of heat from evaporating water.

Very simple physics indeed. If you look at the energy balance, every degree (F) of temperature rise is 1 BTU/lbm, while the heat of vaporization is 1000 BTU/lbm. A degree temperature rise in the ocean would result in a trivial change in the energy balance.

The accepted explanation (from actual scientists and the like) is that wind shear is responsible for breaking up storms before they form hurricanes. As the water temperature rises, the viscosity decreases and reduces the wind shear.

I remember back in The Day, respectable chickenlittles got hysterical over Radon gas and Alar in their appleskins. Y'know, real stuff that could poison you in your own basement, or peel your kids lips off. We just figured 'global warming' meant it was SUMMER, dernit.

-And holy crap.
After the medieval warming period, there was this.

You'd almost think the Earth was warming and cooling of its own accord, without us people here to tell it what to do.

Damned arrogant planet.

I just love how you fearless warriors are terrified to take on the real issue: Bush cut the levee money in order to "make us more safe" by blowing it in Iraq.

Ozone was dealt with in an adult fashion. The most offensive refrigerants and propellants were banned. The Chicken Little types screamed that it would throw the economy into disarray, and the auto industry would be crushed.

Of course alternatives were developed, and these are cheaper too.

Same thing will happen when lower CO2 emissions are enforced. Economy of scale for solutions will make them viable. Demand for new energy-saving technologies will create new opportunities in the market. Why is this hard to see?

I just love how you fearless warriors are terrified to take on the real issue: Bush cut the levee money in order to "make us more safe" by blowing it in Iraq.
Liberal thinking in a nutshell. Should I explain why you're an idiot, or will that just upset you?

Last one was me.

Bush cut the levee money in order to "make us more safe" by blowing it in Iraq.

I read the article you linked earlier.

Where exactly is your documentation for the assertion that Bush "cut the levee money?"

I think you'll find most of us are open to alternative sources of energy. So maybe step away from the talking points and engage in a dialogue.

I just love how you fearless warriors are terrified to take on the real issue: Bush cut the levee money in order to "make us more safe" by blowing it in Iraq.

By the way, I just love how eager liberals are to define my emotional state when confronted with the increasingly-inane arguments of the left.

Yes, buddy. I'm just terrified of you and your arguments. Just scared to death. Crying, almost.

Moron.

Turbino:
The refrigerant alternatives are not as effective as the good old CFCs, and in fact many refrigeration systems still use CFCs obtained from recycling of old reservoirs. For commercial applications the new alternatives usually represent workable solutions, but for weight- or volume-sensitive applications they're a pain.

These new, wondrous technologies are never quite as rosy as they appear, and those mean people in industry are never quite as nasty as they're made out to be. Often there are good technical reasons for resisting change.

Reduce co2 emissions? Ok, china & india go 1st. Failing that, feel free to stop breathing. That'll create all kinds of markets.

Trees and green things need CO2.

Why are these people anti-tree?

Here are a few thoughts in response.

1. What is worse for the economy? The energy industries having to retrofit powerplants. The auto industry being forced to raise CAFE standards. (Inevitably some of this cost will be passed onto the consumer.) or....The effects of global warming, more 100+ degree days, rising oceans, drought, ect.

2."Reduce co2 emissions? Ok, china & india go 1st. Failing that, feel free to stop breathing. That'll create all kinds of markets."

Let's face it these countries are going to have a huge negative enviromental impact. The Chinese goverment with the help of WalMart is going to use up all the resources they can grab and burn them up with no concern for the impact on the air and oceans we all share. The US is probably the only country that could stop their little commie facist plans to rape the planet. We can't begin to do that if we are not living up to the standards we demand of the rest of the world. Even if India and China continue to run their countries like a 19th century coal town can we really afford to let the planet's ecosystems collapse because we don't want to conciede some economic advantage?

3. Yeah the enviromental movement is full of kooks that have Luddite fantasies of hippie communes and dolphin communication centers. That said the simple fact is human beings are animals and need clean air, water, and sustainable agriculture to survive. We can't keep taking a piss in the well....This obvious point seems to go over the heads of alot of people on the right (who otherwise I often agree with).

4. Try firing up a charcoal bar-b-que grill in your livingroom with all the windows shut. Your plants will love the heat and CO2.

Eric:
Your entire suite of arguments is based on the assumption that global warming is a man-made phenomenon caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Conservatives believe that the link between greenhouse gases and global warming has not been proven. So why would they risk damaging the economy to pursue an environmental strategy that may be pointless?

Intellectually drafted article. seems to grab attention at once.The writer has a good knowledge of the subject and makes reading interesting.

"So why would they risk damaging the economy to pursue an environmental strategy that may be pointless?"

I think from where I stand the words "may be" are the most important words in the last post. If CO2 emmisions ( lets not forget deforestation) are causing global warming we "may be" destroying the only ecosystem we have. Can we take that chance?

I think from a non-scientic "common sense" point of veiw it would be hard to imagine that all the cars, powerplants, rainforest destruction, ect. are not having some impact. Do you really want to risk so much just so the GNP stays high? Have you ever been to the san fernando valley on a hot day during rush hour? Try MexicoCity if that isn't obnoxious enough.

Geoff also wrote:
"Conservatives believe that the link between greenhouse gases and global warming has not been proven."

I like to think of myself as a Conservative. I am an orthodox beliver in the genius of the US Constitution. I'm big into the idea of preservation of wilderness that makes this country so great. My type of conservatisim puts science and reason front and center right behind liberty freedom and the persuit of happiness as I believe Ben Franklin would have liked it.

The science I'm reading is telling me that at the very least global warming has a very high possibility of effecting our planet for the worse. I think the short term economic risks are far outwayed by the Katrina like effects of full blown climate change. check out this article about a study out of MIT.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2005/08/01/57888.htm

Eric, the science I'm reading is telling me that if global warming is a fact and if it is man-made, the measures needed to curb our CO2 emissions sufficiently to make a difference would be tanamount to a complete abandonment of a modern way of life. Kyoto doesn't even begin to touch it. It would be less drastic, in fact, to live with the changes the warming would bring; let the ocean have all our cities along the coastline and build inwards.

I have every faith, however, that the technology that (maybe, but probably not) got us here would be our best bet to get us out. Someone pointed out that, had you told a New Yorker in 1900 how the population of the city would grow in the next century, he would be demanding to know how we planned to get rid of all the horseshit.

A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush administration ordered that the research not be undertaken. After a flood killed six people in 1995, Congress created the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, in which the Corps of Engineers strengthened and renovated levees and pumping stations. In early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year (for a total reduction in funding of 44.2 percent since 2001) forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze. The Senate had debated adding funds for fixing New Orleans' levees, but it was too late.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune, which before the hurricane published a series on the federal funding problem, and whose presses are now underwater, reported online: "No one can say they didn't see it coming ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."

So yeah, global warming may not be to blame, but Bush definitely is.

"A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane"

I know that moonbats like Raging Bee have problems with concepts like time and space but this is too much. Tell me, had this study been funded last year how exactly would that have helped now? And why didn't the Clinton administration fund this? Do you really believe we 'just found out' in early 2001 that there was a problem in NO? Go back to a 1969 edition of the Times-Picayune and see if there was some concern when Camille was on the way.

Wow, BrewFan, you're really grasping at straws there. What does that have to do with the Bush Administration's decision to cut funding for flood-protection in New Orleans? Are you trying to say that if one person makes a mistake, no one else should be held accountable for making the same mistake?

Your logic needs reworking - not to mention your values.

So yeah, global warming may not be to blame, but Bush definitely is.

So Bush is to blame because it just never seemed to occur to anyone that maybe, just maybe, a dam made of frickin' dirt wouldn't hold back a Category 4 or 5 hurricane?

Look, I know one of the first human inclinations when something really bad happens is to find someone to blame, but you guys are making me sick.

This is a natural disaster, a freak occurrence, an act of God if you wish. The attempts of you all to reap political benefit from this is just transparently sick. This morning, I've already had to put up with liberal coworkers saying Bush is going to take a hit for this, almost with glee in their voices.

It's damned disgusting, and all of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Bush's decision not to fund a project that could well have prevented the levees from breaking and destroying New Orleans was not an "act of God."

And the same people who routinely blame the far left for Bush's failures in Iraq have no right to accuse anyone else of "trying to reap political benefit."

Bush is the President. He made decisions. He is accountable to the people for the results of his decisions. There is nothing "transparently sick" about questioning him about those decisions - unless of course you consider democracy "transparently sick."

"Your logic needs reworking - not to mention your values"

Right, my values need reworking because I'm the one blaming a single human being for a natural disaster and its aftermath. And my logic needs reworking because I understand that New Orlean's fate has been known for a long time, but one man should get the blame.

I don't think I'd be pointing fingers if I was you Raging Bee.

Raging Bee, I want to add that I think you're a despicable p.o.s. to engage in this sort of blame game for no other reason then to inflict political damage on someone you disagree with. You're not fooling anybody here. A week ago you couldn't have given two hoots in hell about the people of New Orleans.

...

...

I'm frankly stunned at the amount of eagerness there is to blame one guy for this disaster. I mean, the first reaction of many on the left was not to start looking for ways to help, but to start looking through federal budgets, trying to find something they could use against the president.

And you're questioning our values?

I'm a US citizen asking questions about our government's performance in relation to a disaster (or rather, a linked series of disasters) that killed a lot of people. I fail to see why this is suddenly so out-of-line. If you can't answer the specific allegations, just admit it. You're not directly responsible, so it's not like you'll suffer for being honest. What's the problem here? Why this desperate need to hyperventilate about the most whacked-out "global warming did it" theories, if not to distract attention from more substantive and reality-based questions about Bush's performance?

Yes, slub, I had a similar experience this morning. Guy was flabbergasted that I am not blaming Bush for the hurricane devastation.

For crying out loud, they acquired funds for maintaining the levees years ago- not rebuilding them, but maintaining them- and even then, about a third of the money disappeared. Went poof.

Mistakes and stupidity and corruption and lack of planning have been going on in New Orleans long before Bush was even fucking born.

Get a clue, you batshit loon.

I'm a US citizen asking questions about our government's performance in relation to a disaster (or rather, a linked series of disasters) that killed a lot of people. I fail to see why this is suddenly so out-of-line. If you can't answer the specific allegations, just admit it. You're not directly responsible, so it's not like you'll suffer for being honest. What's the problem here? Why this desperate need to hyperventilate about the most whacked-out "global warming did it" theories, if not to distract attention from more substantive and reality-based questions about Bush's performance?

Really? Well, I didn't hear the left hyperventilating about the need to save NOLA before this disaster hit. None of you gave a shit about the people in that city - until, of course, that 'concern' could be used as a club against the Bush administration.

You're not just some concerned citizen looking for answers. You're a fucking ghoul looking for a corpse to gnaw on.

"I'm a US citizen asking questions about our government's performance in relation to a disaster (or rather, a linked series of disasters) that killed a lot of people"

No you're not. You're a moron with BDS who thinks they can use human pain and suffering to score some political points. You don't fool anybody here. Try Daily Kos, you'll find like minded folks over there.

I apologize for the profanity. I don't usually use such words, but this subject has me particularly perturbed.

Bush didn't cause the hurricane. But he sure claims he doesn't understand what he DID do to stop preventative work on the levees:

George Bush on ABC's Good Morning America, Sept. 1, 2005:

"I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."

UNBELIEVABLE. Now go read what WAS anticipated, in print, by the actual people in charge, and what Bush did, and try to keep from howling at that lying weasel:

http://tinyurl.com/dc6rw

Right, first you bash me for blaming Bush, then you try to shift the blame to other parties you won't even specify. Care to elaborate? Did Bush cut the funding specifically because he objected to specific instances of waste or mismanagement? Or are you saying that such past mistakes make it OK not to try to remedy the situation?

So much for "how dare you blame someone for this disaster."

One fallacy in the editorial excerpted above is the claim that Bush made the cuts in order to fund the war. He made cuts across the budget in order to fund the tax cut. Probably won't placate the liberals, but hopefully they'll stop yammering on about "levees vs. oil."

My first reaction was to send money to the Red Cross.

The conservative's first reaction to information suggesting that the administration transferred money from NO storm mitigation projects to the elective war in Iraq is to attack those making the suggestion. Spin away, but this, and that fact that ~35% of LA, MS and Al National Guard personnel are in Iraq, is going to suck for the Bush administration and significantly increases the chances that the Dems will take back Congress in a year. No amount of ad hominem spin is going to help you on this.

Well, If you cant blame all that "Junk Science"..

Ahem...

Here is a quote from an article originally published on June 8, 2004 in the Times-Picayune:

For the first time in 37 years, federal budget cuts have all but stopped major work on the New Orleans area's east bank hurricane levees, a complex network of concrete walls, metal gates and giant earthen berms that won't be finished for at least another decade.

"I guess people look around and think there's a complete system in place, that we're just out here trying to put icing on the cake," said Mervin Morehiser, who manages the "Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity" levee project for the Army Corps of Engineers. "And we aren't saying that the sky is falling, but people should know that this is a work in progress, and there's more important work yet to do before there is a complete system in place."

...

"I can't tell you exactly what that could mean this hurricane season if we get a major storm," Naomi said. "It would depend on the path and speed of the storm, the angle that it hits us.

"But I can tell you that we would be better off if the levees were raised, . . . and I think it's important and only fair that those people who live behind the levee know the status of these projects."

...

The Bush administration's proposed fiscal 2005 budget includes only $3.9 million for the east bank hurricane project. Congress likely will increase that amount, although last year it bumped up the administration's $3 million proposal only to $5.5 million.

"I needed $11 million this year, and I got $5.5 million," Naomi said. "I need $22.5 million next year to do everything that needs doing, and the first $4.5 million of that will go to pay four contractors who couldn't get paid this year."

And here is an excerpt from May of this year:

In the event of a slow-moving Category 4 or Category 5 hurricane (with winds up to or exceeding 155 miles per hour), it's possible that only those crow's nests would remain above the water level. Such a storm, plowing over the lake, could generate a 20-foot surge that would easily overwhelm the levees of New Orleans, which only protect against a hybrid Category 2 or Category 3 storm (with winds up to about 110 miles per hour and a storm surge up to 12 feet). Soon the geographical "bowl" of the Crescent City would fill up with the waters of the lake, leaving those unable to evacuate with little option but to cluster on rooftops -- terrain they would have to share with hungry rats, fire ants, nutria, snakes, and perhaps alligators. The water itself would become a festering stew of sewage, gasoline, refinery chemicals, and debris.

"I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." GWB.

Probably true -He doesent know shit.

Quack.

From http://tinyurl.com/dc6rw

"The Bush administration's proposed fiscal 2005 budget includes only $3.9 million for the east bank hurricane project. Congress likely will increase that amount, although last year it bumped up the administration's $3 million proposal only to $5.5 million."

"'I needed $11 million this year, and I got $5.5 million," Naomi said. "I need $22.5 million next year to do everything that needs doing, and the first $4.5 million of that will go to pay four contractors who couldn't get paid this year.'"
--------------
From May 2005 (http://tinyurl.com/dc6rw)

"In the event of a slow-moving Category 4 or Category 5 hurricane (with winds up to or exceeding 155 miles per hour), it's possible that only those crow's nests would remain above the water level. Such a storm, plowing over the lake, could generate a 20-foot surge that would easily overwhelm the levees of New Orleans, which only protect against a hybrid Category 2 or Category 3 storm (with winds up to about 110 miles per hour and a storm surge up to 12 feet). Soon the geographical "bowl" of the Crescent City would fill up with the waters of the lake, leaving those unable to evacuate with little option but to cluster on rooftops -- terrain they would have to share with hungry rats, fire ants, nutria, snakes, and perhaps alligators. The water itself would become a festering stew of sewage, gasoline, refinery chemicals, and debris."

Yet Bush can go on national TV and claim no one anticipated this...

UNBELIEVABLE.

Every nice thing I ever said about you vonK I now retract. 500 National Guardsmen are on their way from Wisconsin as we speak. Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama haven't even deployed all of their National Guard yet. The Army, Navy and Marines are already there. Manpower is not and has not been an issue. How the manpower they had was used should be the topic of discussion. Of course this would involve questioning the Democrats who run Louisiana and N.O. so you won't do that. Enough with the bullsh*t already, you're better then that. I thought.

You guys think you're going to pick up seats in Congress by playing politics while a grievous national emergency is still unfolding? You're drifting further and further from any concept of what ordinary, decent people think. You know. Voters.

I think Slubs said everything I would have, but better. Americans die and the Left's first instinct is to look for a political angle... it's sort of sad that this doesn't even have the power to surprise, anger, or disgust me anymore. I'm just becoming numb to it.

I love it! tubino (and 'Conservative Killer') link/post articles that prove...nothing! lol! And the Presidents quote you take out of context. You know he was referring to the fact that the breech of the levee occurred *after* the hurricane had passed. But don't let logic and facts get in the way of your hatred!

What the Moonbats don't understand is this:

Even if every dime requested from the US Government was granted, Katrina STILL would have done the EXACT SAME AMOUNT of damage.

Why? Because (a) the work would not have been completed by now, and (b) the levees could not hold back a Catagory 5 storm.

Morons.

From a 2003 Army Corps of Engineers press release about the 2004 budget:

... and provides substantial funding for eight projects that are the highest priorities in the Nation. The high priority projects are the New York and New Jersey Harbor deepening project ($115 million); the Olmsted Locks and Dam, IL & KY, project ($73 million); projects to restore the Florida Everglades ($145 million) and the side channels of the Upper Mississippi River system ($33 million); projects to provide flood damage reduction to urban areas, namely, the Sims Bayou, Houston, TX, project ($12 million) and the West Bank and Vicinity, New Orleans, LA, project ($35 million); and projects to meet environmental requirements in the Columbia River Basin ($98 million) and the Missouri River basin ($22 million).

I'm not sure yet but it also appears the documents linked by the above moonbats refer to work on a levee that is different from the one that failed. So, to repeat, Morons!

What these guys seem to forget is that these levees were built out of earth, better known as dirt.

In 1889, a flood caused by a broken earth dam destroyed the city of Johnstown, Pennsylvania. The tragedy caused a national uproar and many questioned the wisdom of earth dams.

We've known for well over a hundred years that concrete and newer building materials make better dams and levees. New Orleans knew this, and did nothing for decades. I'm not blaming the government of that city, just pointing out that engineering history seems to have passed that city by.

With the left, casting blame on the Bushes has become something of a habit. After September 11, you tried to prove that "BUSH KNEW" and did nothing based on a vaguely-worded PDB.

After the tsunamis, some on the left tried to blame Bush and dug up papers and studies and such to prove he knew about the risk.

As Megan said, those of us on the right have become almost numb to the constant attempts to blame the president for everything, and the inhumanity of finding political gain in human tragedy.

Given the intensity of your belief, and the speed with which you're casting the blame, maybe it's time for the right to wake up again to your antics and point them out to the millions of Americans who aren't thinking about blame, but instead are trying to figure out how they could help.

Maybe some light and some bad press will help you find the humanity you seem to have lost in your fanatical Bush hatred.

"One fallacy in the editorial excerpted above is the claim that Bush made the cuts in order to fund the war. He made cuts across the budget in order to fund the tax cut. Probably won't placate the liberals, but hopefully they'll stop yammering on about "levees vs. oil."

No they won't, because they are imbeciles who have either never had, or have lost the ability to logically analyze anything. If you doubt that, read the posts by Raging Bee or Turbino. Anything bad that happens anywhere must somehow be the fault of G.W. Bush, even acts of nature. If a great earthquake occurred tomorrow, dropping part of California into the sea, I guarantee you they'd be blaming Bush.

Yeah, right, Bush consciously decides to cut funding for flood-protection, then says there was no way he could have anticipated what knowledgeable authorities told him he could anticipate...but the people who point this out are "ghouls" who are trying to "profit from disaster."

This is the same cowardly evasion we hear every time someone wants to weasel out of the consequences of his mistakes. If we're wrong in this instance, then you should be able to prove it without the name-calling. If you can't, then this blog has nothing to offer.

No, you're ghouls because it's your first response. How about we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give water to the thirsty and bury the dead first.

Then we can talk about blame. Hold a congressional hearing - flood the airwaves with accusations, counter-accusations and the usual blather of Washington.

But do it later.

Raging Bee et al.,
I'm sure you're aware that there is little chance that Bush personally had any involvement with the cut. The Senate and House Appropriations Committees have quite a bit to say about the budget as well. Personifying this as Bush's personal shortsightedness is ridiculous and only feeds your irrational hatred.

You could make the claim that this is a consequence of the Bush tax cuts - that critical services have been sacrificed in order to stimulate the economy. Then we could debate the relative merits of the two approaches. But saying "Bush consciously decides . . ." is ludicrous.

Except maybe Texans hate Louisianans . . .

" If a great earthquake occurred tomorrow, dropping part of California into the sea, I guarantee you they'd be blaming Bush. "

No, but... FEMA's short list of disasters to prepare for had 3 items. #2 was a hurricane hitting New Orleans.

Another of the 3 is an earthquake hitting San Francisco.

If Bush hadn't returned FEMA to its old way by appointing an unqualified director (see http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002458.html), and cut its budget, and had its duties replaced by a Homeland Security Dept that doesn't actually do FEMA stuff...

well, but he did do those things. And if the aftermath of an earthquake in SF is as mismanaged as NO, then sure, Bush would bear responsibility.

FEMA since 2001 is being mismanaged with political appointees. This is the same screwball non-serious political payoff way that the Iraq operation is being mismanaged, and failing.

And after this many years of this pattern, we have every right to blame Bush for his actions.

"What the Moonbats don't understand is this:

Even if every dime requested from the US Government was granted, Katrina STILL would have done the EXACT SAME AMOUNT of damage."

If FEMA hadn't been mismanaged / destroyed /, they would have had evacuation plans in place. We wouldn't be witnessing the 3rd world response we're seeing now.

Morons.

Look, we're not trying to deny you your orgies of blame.

All we ask is that you have the decency to start pointing fingers after all of the work necessary to help those in need is done.

A lot of blogs and websites are raising money today. Instapundit, Michelle Malkin, and others are putting links on their front pages, in their content, to raise money for the Red Cross and other organizations.

Just checked Michael Moore's site. Not one link. Only the usual blame-Bush crap he's been writing for years. Atrios and Kos have blogads for donations, but no content from writers asking people to donate to a particular charity.

Joshua Micah Marshall is the only liberal blogger of note that has a link at the top of his page asking people to donate to the American Red Cross. The rest are just caught up in the life as usual Bush-bash.

If you want to see why the claim above is wrong ("EXACT SAME AMOUNT of damage") you can ask yourself why nothing could have been done in FOUR YEARS, or you can read TPM. You can start here and work down:

---------------------
Then there's this piece in the Chicago Tribune. First three grafs ...

Despite continuous warnings that a catastrophic hurricane could hit New Orleans, the Bush administration and Congress in recent years have repeatedly denied full funding for hurricane preparation and flood control.
That has delayed construction of levees around the city and stymied an ambitious project to improve drainage in New Orleans' neighborhoods.

For instance, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested $27 million for this fiscal year to pay for hurricane-protection projects around Lake Pontchartrain. The Bush administration countered with $3.9 million, and Congress eventually provided $5.7 million, according to figures provided by the office of U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).

And further down in the piece there's this ...

"I'm not saying it wouldn't still be flooded, but I do feel that if it had been totally funded, there would be less flooding than you have," said Michael Parker, a former Republican Mississippi congressman who headed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from October 2001 until March 2002, when he was ousted after publicly criticizing a Bush administration proposal to cut the corps' budget.
Clearly Parker is yet another Bush-basher.
--------------

LOTS MORE THERE. and here:

The point is simple: BUSH has preferred political appointments and payoffs over competency and efficiency. The results are deadly.

NOLA Mayor: Democrat
city council: Democrats
LA Governor: Democrat
Sen. Landrieu: Democrat
LA Lt. Governor: Democrat

Notice a pattern here?

It's like talking into a wall.

Is decency really that hard to understand?

Wow. We're seeing the true colors of the left, aren't we.

I find it interesting that so many people assume that New Orlean's levy system should be federally funded. Why weren't they raising revenue in New Orleans to build whatever system the city thought necessary? Federal funding be damned, if you need to build levies you put a tax measure on the ballot. If it fails, then the voters made their choice. Afterall, it's their city, not mine.

Blaming George Bush for the aftermath of this hurricane simply exposes the spiteful pettiness of the left. I laugh at every past reference to VonKreedon as a thoughtful, reasonable leftist. He exposed once and for all who he really is on this thread.

Sorry, but I and others can BOTH give to charity, worry about the plight of those caught in the catastrophe AND point out that this administration has prioritized an elective war and tax cuts for the wealthy over actually protecting citizens in the Gulf Coast. This is very inconvenient for the Repubs, so they turn to hysterionic ad hominems to try and spin the information. Sorry and tought shit but the political reality is that the Bush administration's priorities and incompetence are laid out for the country to see and you are not going to be able to hide this from the electorate.

Tubino:

Those claims are going to have to be examined closely in the upcoming weeks, but I don't find the quotes from the Tribune particularly compelling. Lake Pontchartrain has not yet flooded (though it could happen), so the funding cut example is irrelevant, for the moment. Since the funding cuts should properly be studied in the context of the overall budget, and since we haven't heard the counterpoint position (i.e., the ratioanle for the cuts), relying on these cherry-picking quotes is not sound.

And how "continuous" and fervent were these warnings - we've had warnings on everything, did the hurricane warnings rise above the noise level? Here's a reason why federal budgeteers may have been blase about the hurricane threat:

Most residents along the East and Gulf coasts don't plan to take even simple steps to protect themselves and their homes from hurricanes, despite the devastation caused by five hurricanes that struck the United States last year, according to a 2005 poll.

Fifty-six percent of those surveyed said they felt "not too" vulnerable or "not at all" vulnerable. And one in four would do nothing to prepare for a storm, even after a watch or warning was issued.

In 2004, four hurricanes struck Florida within six weeks. They were among six tropical storms and nine hurricanes that formed during the unprecedented 2004 season. Hurricane Alex also struck North Carolina. Overall, the hurricanes and tropical storms cost 117 lives in Florida and damaged or destroyed one in five Florida homes. Property losses were estimated at $42 billion.

Yet 47 percent of those surveyed had no disaster plan for the hurricane season, the poll found.

If the residents at risk have this level of unconcern, how seriously should the government take the hurricane threat? And how immediate is the threat, given that New Orleans has been at risk for the entirety of its existence?

There are many levels of responsibility in disaster preparedness: individual, city, county, state, and federal. All the blame here seems to be concentrated at the federal level.

Okay, von Kreedon. No point talking past each other. The electorate now has a chance to see both the Bush administration's behavior, and politicization of a tragedy-in-progress that the Left is indulging in. We'll see which they find more distasteful.

S. - Yep, see you in 2006.

To all the Bush-lovers who start ranting as soon as someone mentions global warming...
Reducing emissions wouldn't necessarily hit the economy. You just don't want to face reality, and the reality is that the American people have always been used to consume as much as they want. Not always in an arrogant way, but surely in a naive one. You want big cars, air-conditioniong til rooms freeze in the summer? You consume a hell lot by doing so, and don't even conceive the fact that hundreds of million people live in developed countries with half as many energy you waste everyday. Wake up and smell the coffee, men.

Ummm... coffeee...

Sorry, but I and others can BOTH give to charity, worry about the plight of those caught in the catastrophe AND point out that this administration has prioritized an elective war and tax cuts for the wealthy over actually protecting citizens in the Gulf Coast.

That's great, but should you?

That's the question you should be asking. It's just distasteful. Like I've said repeatedly on this thread, ask your questions, hold your hearings.

Just have the simple decency to do it later.

Coffee? You drink coffee?!! How DARE you! You're ruining the planet!

"so they turn to hysterionic ad hominems to try and spin the information"

Pot, Kettle, Black, dude. Although it strikes me that calling you an asshole is less severe then accusing the President of the United States of being a mass murderer. This is where being a moral relativist comes in mighty handy for you, right vonK?

I'm sure it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, but why should that mean that we wait until the issue is less relevant to press the issue? If the issue is not pressed now then the administration can better issue "let's all move forward..." spin to further hide their priorities and incompetence.

The bad taste in you mouth my not be what you wish it was.

Reducing emissions wouldn't necessarily hit the economy.

ROFL...

Brew - Have I attacked you? Called you a ghoul or a moron? I have attacked this administration for its policies and incompetence, but that is not what is meant by an ad hominem attack.

I don't drink coffee. I drink a beverage brewed from the small, dry, dessicated husks of third world children who perished because I leave the air conditioning on for the cat while I'm at work. It's the American thing to drink. And refreshing, too!

Easy to ROFL...
ever thought we're not just talking about factories but everyday's life?
Start by turning off your air-conditioning now and then, or by buying a car that doesn't gobble fuel like an SUV. You cut emissions also this way.

Actually, the bad taste in my mouth could be the McDonald's I picked up for lunch. Boy, have their standards slipped.

Anyway, I think that's a cop-out. Keeping an administration's feet to the fire is why we have an opposition party, isn't it? If you don't want the issue to be forgotten, then don't let us forget about it.

In the meantime, I'd like to see Michael Moore dedicate half the time he spends bashing Bush trying to rally support for the Red Cross and helping those affected by this disaster.

But we don't want to cut emissions. We're Republicans; we hate the environment.

We're Republicans; we hate the environment.

Yeah, friggin' trees...

Trees are evil. :( We have to pave the world.

Redstate debunks VonKreedon's ridiculous argument here.

Trees are evil. I mean, how many times have I sat on the porch of a camp on a lake here in Maine and had my view obstructed by TREES?

I want to see the LAKE. Those trees should be cut down and used to build a platform and chairs I could use to get a better view of said lake.

"Brew - Have I attacked you"

You attack my sensabilities with your illogical worldview and your BDS. Does that count?

"Start by turning off your air-conditioning now and then, or by buying a car that doesn't gobble fuel like an SUV"

Somebody is jealous!! Must be hot where you are.

"I drink a beverage brewed from the small, dry, dessicated husks of third world children ...."

I like the vanilla flavor.

Jealous of what?
I've travelled the US north and south, and I'm happy were I am. We just have different attitudes: you think you can do whatever you want (freedom, isn't it?), we think that somebody's freedom stops when it starts affecting others'. More generally, if I know that my way of life is built on wasting, I try to change a bit. And I'm not a frigging environmentalist.

Looks like the breach *did* come from Lake Pontchartrain - my bad.

I've travelled the US north and south

How wasteful.

Did it by bus :-)

we think that somebody's freedom stops when it starts affecting others'.

How does my turning up the AC and driving like a bat out of hades affect your freedom?

Thanks for the link to Redstate Warden but don't hold your breath for vonK to read it. It might harsh his BDS buzz.

If you read my post better, you'd undestand that is the attitude that prevents you from thinking you can't just do what you want. Of course it doesn't affect my freedom in the literal sense: I can go wherever I want and do what I like, sure.
But don't you see like everything is connected?
That if you consume less oil, oil will cost less because there's less demand?
Are you so damn sure that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist? Cos that affects the entire world.

You know, I'm calmer now and trying to be nice. No more ad homs, I promise.

If you read my post better...

That doesn't help me continue trying to be nice.

Ok
C'mon, show me what you're like...

Nope.

I'm a warm lovable little ball of happiness in real life.

Honest. :-)

I’d say that apethetic voters, and people livin’ for today, allowing 5 years of dismanteling of environmental protection bear a lot of the responsibility. Millions of acres of wetlands protected years ago from development, lost that protection under the BushII administration. These wetlands were the natural buffer between a storm surge and NOLA.

We will be hearing a lot in coming months about the “dead zone” in the Caribbean. To put it succinctly, chemical fertilizer runoff from the Missouri and Mississippi rivers accumulate in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico every summer, causing a massive phytoplankton bloom. This bloom absorbs all oxygen and causes the surface temps to get up to and past 90. This is what caused Katrina to go from a CAT2 and weakening to a CAT5 literally overnight.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/dead_zone.html

That and Bush chopping 44% out of New Orleans Corps of Engineers budget (bad timing, that…), well, kina hamstrings local goverment. The Bush administration has also been dismanteling FEMA, putting the responsibilities on Homeland Security, which is proving almost completely unprepared.

http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2004-09-22/cover.html

It’s been 4 years since 9/11 and supposedly Homeland Security is in place to handle the aftermath of a large-scale terrorist attack. Such an attack would leave a refugee situation similar to what we see in NOLA…why is HS so unprepared?

After the shock of the event, the American people need to scrutinize what this government under George Bush has done to the programs and systems that were supposed to take care of us in the event of disaster, as well as the laws that were put in place to try to avert it in the first place.

This is no time for “theological science”.

Everything in the world is not a zero-sum game, Alex. Everything we have is not at the expense of those who do not have as much. The only reason we're all still driving cars with gasoline engines is, it's pretty darned cheap because there's lots of oil left. Even with our big, greedy American SUV's. You know what happens if the price of oil gets high enough? Suddenly, the alternatives become viable. And all the alternatives I know of promise to be cleaner and less emitting of greenhouse gases.

So, basically, you Europeans and your stinginess with oil are holding back the development of alternatives. Nice going.

"Are you so damn sure that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist"

The 'greenhouse effect' does exist or we wouldn't have an atmosphere. What we dispute is the evidence (or lack thereof) supporting global warming. Why punish US consumers and our economy over speculation?

Crap. I just lost a comment when my computer went flaky.

S. Weasel pretty much said what I wanted to say anyway.

"Millions of acres of wetlands protected years ago from development, lost that protection under the BushII administration. These wetlands were the natural buffer between a storm surge and NOLA."

SCREEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMM!
THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!

Global Warming doesn't cause storms, Chicken Hawk.

Global Warming makes the storms stronger as storms gather strength from warmth. It's not that complex. It's not god, it's not the devil. It's heat.

In the shorter term, what bush boy could have been done to help was to not send 1/2 the National Guard to guard oil in Iraq and to not radically defund FEMA and other first responders.

Personally, I'd prefer if bush boy would wipe that idiotic 'my pet goat' look off his face.

Events like these prove that conservatives were wrong when they repeatedly said in 2000 that we really don't need an intelligent president.

Where are all these creatures coming from today?

Hey, Lars. Is there a point to that, or are you just here to seagull the board?

Alex,

If you are arguing that we all should make a few small personal sacrifices in the name of conservation, I agree with you. If you are arguing that we are a wasteful society, I also agree.

If you are arguing for more government regulation, then I disagree.

I'm of the mind that if you believe strongly in a cause, you should spend your energy seeking to change hearts and minds rather than seeking to change policy. I've always believed that if you win the debate, then the policy will follow. Futhermore, governmental laws and regulation always work best when the vast majority agrees with them. Otherwise, the citizenry will simply find ways to circumvent the law.

So, which is it for you? Were you really trying to make a case or just simply tweak the noses of we "Bush lovers"? If you were engaging simply to provoke a fight, that's cool. Sometimes I do it myself. But your tone has shifted from when you made your first post. I'm not sure what it is you want to achieve.

Futhermore, governmental laws and regulation always work best when the vast majority agrees with them. Otherwise, the citizenry will simply find ways to circumvent the law.

Case in point: low-flow toilets. The things were meant to save water, but they didn't since they had to be flushed more often to get the, um, stuff down.

People started illegally converting their toilets back to the old style monster flushes. Good intentioned policy led to bad environmental effects.

Personally, I'd prefer if bush boy would wipe that idiotic 'my pet goat' look off his face.

Personally, I'd prefer if you'd eat a big bowl of shit and take your circus act elsewhere, jerk-off.

Lars. Who the fuck names his kid Lars?

Alex,

"If you are arguing that we all should make a few small personal sacrifices in the name of conservation, I agree with you. If you are arguing that we are a wasteful society, I also agree.

If you are arguing for more government regulation, then I disagree"

I'm from Italy, so speaking of government regulation in the US makes little sense to me. I'm glad you agree with me, that is what I wanted to say.
Sorry if my tone has changed, but you're the first one trying to really talk here and I appreciate that. The others just avoided it.

Sorry if my tone has changed, but you're the first one trying to really talk here and I appreciate that. The others just avoided it.

Sorry about that. The infestation of guys like Lars boy there has us a bit twitchy.

I think the environmental movement's use of the political system and the courts is what has led to its radicalization and to a certain extent, separation from the lives of ordinary citizens of this country.

Their energy was spent getting political elites to change laws and trying to get government agencies to make rules changes that grew more and more restrictive. By doing this, rather than trying to convince people of their point of view, they have generated no small amount of resentment.

I think people should conserve. I think people should recycle, and try to think of the ultimate end of a particular purchase. For instance, I buy cage-free eggs and farm-raised meat because I don't want to support factory farming. Sure, my dollars going elsewhere might not make a huge difference, but if I can convince others to follow my lead then maybe in a few years things might change.

Anyway, that's what I think on this - the whole hearts and minds argument.

Since much of NO is below sea level, it's been common knowledge probably since its founding that a massive hurricane could wipe out the city. Yet it only had levees rated for a category 3 hurricane. Basically it has been relying on luck for its entire history. So now a hurricane comes along and devastates that city. Somehow it's Bush's fault, because he alone supposedly should have done something to reinforce those levees. Never mind that no one has ever done anything to secure NO against a hurricane -- if that's even possible -- let's just blame Bush, not the many governments of Louisiana throughout history, not the many municipal goverments of NO, not even previous administrations, congresses, etc. It's all the fault of G.W. Bush.

I dislike waste and find it aesthetically offensive, but conservation is only a tiny part of managing the supply of any finite resource. You cannot conserve your way to wealth. As for recycling, it's an open question whether more resources aren't consumed by the process of recycling than would be involved simply throwing things away. I've heard both arguments.

It is the essential madness of leftists to insist that we feel guilty about the two things living organisms cannot help but do: consume resources and produce waste. And yet they insist no guilt be attached to all sorts of behaviors we can control in ourselves, such as looting or burglary or diseases that arise from promiscuity.

Funding a "study" != pouring concrete.

In all my years in academia and out in the real world, I've yet to witness a sheaf of paper do anything other than prop up a wobbly table.

radically defund FEMA and other first responders.

FEMA is not, and never has been a "first responder" in any normal sense.

FEMA is an administrative unit - they push paper. They'll get you a loan many weeks AFTER THE FACT. Maybe they'll get you a nifty blue FEMA tarp - BUT IT WILL BE SOMEONE ELSE WHO PUTS IT UP.

Anyone who has lived through a hurricane where FEMA was involved knows this.

I've been in meetings, so sorry for the delay in response.

Regarding the RedState "debunking":

After most of a screen worth of ad hominem and isinuation that NO really was lost cause anyway, Thomas gets around to making an argument.

The Left would have us believe that the Bush Administration purposefully underfunded the levees, and that this underfunding directly caused (or at minimum, contributed to) the catastrophe in New Orleans. This is wholly false.

He correctly states half the argument, the other half being that the reason for the underfunding was to help pay for the MessO'Potamia and the tax cut.

The idea that the White House and Congress should have magically foreseen a Cat4-5 coming down almost head-on onto New Orleans, and should have therefore increased funding for the levees, and that doing so would somehow have stopped this tragedy, is absurd. It wouldn't last five minutes in even the most Plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the Union.

He gets slippery with the argument here. There was no need to "magically" forsee a Cat4-5 storm, that was the reason for the funding of the projects in the first place. Bush's assertion that nobody could have foreseen this possibility is simply, plainly and stupidly wrong, but Thomas takes up the party line anyway. Also, there is no argument that funding should have been increased, rather that the administration was reckless in decreasing the appropriated funding. What mitigation fully funding the projects would have made is of course speculative, but one of the projects was to reinforce the very 17th Street canal that gave way.

Then Thomas returns to the comfort of blaming the government and citizens of NO for not doing it themselves or living elsewhere, and of course more reference to "ghouls" and "gibbering yard apes" before attempting to make more argument.

But let’s stop for a moment and examine the idea that the local government should have done the work. According to the Times-Picayune article that Thomas attributes to Editor & Publisher:
Also that June, with the 2004 hurricane season starting, the Corps' project manager Al Naomi went before a local agency, the East Jefferson Levee Authority, and essentially begged for $2 million for urgent work that Washington was now unable to pay for.
...
The panel authorized that money, and on July 1, 2004, it had to pony up another $250,000 when it learned that stretches of the levee in Metairie had sunk by four feet. The agency had to pay for the work with higher property taxes. The levee board noted in October 2004 that the feds were also now not paying for a hoped-for $15 million project to better shore up the banks of Lake Pontchartrain.
…
The 2004 hurricane season was the worst in decades. In spite of that, the federal government came back this spring with the steepest reduction in hurricane and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history. Because of the proposed cuts, the Corps office there imposed a hiring freeze. Officials said that money targeted for the SELA project -- $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million -- was not enough to start any new jobs.

So we see that the local government tried to keep the work going, ponying up local money to cover the federal shortfall, but they weren’t able to keep up with the underfunding.

Thomas and others have then latched on this bit about funding a study:

There was, at the same time, a growing recognition that more research was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. But once again, the money was not there. As the Times-Picayune reported last Sept. 22:
"That second study would take about four years to complete and would cost about $4 million, said Army Corps of Engineers project manager Al Naomi. About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount. But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money, he said."

Now it is true that this study, had it even begun, would not have helped NO wrt Katrina. However, the political issue is the Bush administration’s policy priorities and this clearly defines that they prioritize the invasion/occupation of Iraq over protecting NO from Hurricanes. Further, while the study would not have helped NO in the current context it would have provided very useful information on how to rebuild NO.

Thomas continues his argument by noting that, “ A 15-foot wall doesn't contain a 22-foot surge. Once the water is over the levee in any quantity, it starts scouring the levee from the face of the earth. ”. He argues that even IF the Feds had not de-funded the levee projects we would be in the same situation. He quotes the Times-Picayune:
A large section of the vital 17th Street Canal levee, where it connects to the brand new "hurricane proof" Old Hammond Highway bridge, gave way late Monday morning in Bucktown after Katrina's fiercest winds were well north.

But from the original T-P article we find out that:
One project that a contractor had been racing to finish this summer: a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach on Monday.
Reading the two articles it would seem that the bridge got finished, but not the levee that gave way.

Finally Thomas ends up arguing that this does show the Bush administration’s priorities and that they are the correct priorities:
governance is an exercise in prioritization. Was it rational and defensible to shift funding from any source toward defense- and war-related activities in the aftermath of 9/11? Of course.

He re-iterates that this prioritization is irrelevant:
The levees were inherently unready: even at maximum proposed funding, their design was only for a Cat3 storm, not the Cat4/5 that Katrina was.

But the levees in fact came very close to holding. For the first 24 hours it looked like NO was in fact spared, but then the 17th St. levee breached.

The T-P article ends with the following indictment of the Bush administration, and I will end with this as well:
The Newhouse News Service article published Tuesday night observed, "The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be opposed by the White House. ... In its budget, the Bush administration proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need."
Local officials are now saying, the article reported, that had Washington heeded their warnings about the dire need for hurricane protection, including building up levees and repairing barrier islands, "the damage might not have been nearly as bad as it turned out to be."

Well, at least vonK admitted he was wrong; that nothing Bush did or didn't do caused the situation we have in New Orleans. It seems his point is that he doesn't agree with the administrations priorities. Fair enough. Now he just needs to admit he needs help for the acute case of BDS he suffers from.

QUOTE: "Here's a reason why federal budgeteers may have been blase about the hurricane threat"

No. That's idiotic. The fact that local people don't have the big picture is a reason why you have a FEMA, a FEMA that put hurricane hitting NO as #2 disaster it should plan for.

If you want to read one article to understand how FEMA got so f***ed up in just 4 years, you have to read this Sept 04 article by Jon Elliston:

http://tinyurl.com/7ujjf

It's very good, and has some specifics on New Orleans and flooding.

I double-dog-dare you to do it.

That's not quite what I was saying. I did say that we cannot know if fully funding the levee improvements would have mitigated what has happened in NO. But you are right that the main thrust of my argument is that this lays bare this administration's priorities and incompetence.

What is BDS?

BTW, vonK, while you're admitting you were wrong, shouldn't you add you were wrong about there not being enough NG troops available too?

BDS = Bush Derangement Syndrome: an irrational and unfounded hatred of the President.

Oh, thought it might be Bush Detestation Syndrome: a rational and well founded disgust with this administration.

Are there enough NG? I'm not seeing/hearing that to be the case. At any rate I definitely read an authority saying that ~35% of the personnel in the LA/MS/AL Gaurd are currently in Iraq and I would think that would have a significant impact on the Guard's ability to respond. Do you disagree?

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear above.

What Bush did to FEMA since 2001 is directly responsible for the horrible mismanagement of the disaster.

Not the disaster, but how it is being (mis)managed. Follow link above. Bush is responsible.

Some call it Baghdad on Bourbon Street.

Looting? Freedom is messy.

Here's a 2001 article from Scientific American on a hurricane hitting New Orleans.

Skip to the end to get to the part about NOAA predicting storms of greater intensity.

2001. Scientific American.

George Bush on ABC's Good Morning America, Sept. 1, 2005:

"I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."

Question: Does anyone know if any official has said whether or not money will be put aside for building the levees bigger/stronger to withstand another catagory whatever hurricane? If they plan to rebuild what's the new plan for protecting the city?

Missing URL above for Sci Am article: http://tinyurl.com/dd2yt (What is the trick here?)

Link

Hey, tubino. See all that attention you're getting?

Take a hint.

ChrisG:

Hastert proposed bulldozing itall.

A Dutch engineer suggested the hydraulic sea walls that protect 16M below sea-level in Holland could work.

But that would take a competent administration.

Slubog:

See how horribly wrong it's going in NO?

Take a hint.

I think it's time to move on. Also, I think any President would be catching grief at a time of such tragedy. It's unfortunate that Bush cut the funding. I think most politicians realize that money poured into New Orleans goes everywhere but where it's supposed to go. I think whoever is in charge when the levees are rebuilt needs to make sure there's zero corruption.

And you're waiting like a vulture to pick at the political carcass.

Thanks for the feedback on the Dutch engineer. It's good to know there may be some kind of system we can put in place next time.

See how horribly wrong it's going in NO?

By the way, Tubino, it may surprise you to know that I don't think the president is handling this crisis all that well. What I don't like, however, is the speed and the glee with which his political opponents are latching onto a national crisis to score political points.

By the way, tubino. I apologize for my snippiness. It's been a long day.

Hey Moonbats:

You know, the reason why W wasn't reading any of that shit you keep dredging up is because he was getting some massive head from Laura.

And we all know that's a perfectly acceptable excuse for damn near anything, don't we?

So fuck off, ya cunts.

What I don't like, however, is the speed and the glee with which his political opponents are latching onto a national crisis to score political points.

Actually, I kinda like it. It's exactly the asinine behavior that most reasonable people reject, because it offends their sense of fairness. Gets em to the polls.

I hope the moonbats never give it up. So far, I see no reason to worry about it.

Dang. Just realized I used the same phrase to start my last two comments.

"By the way..." Criminy, what a cliche. Told you I was tired.

OK Tubino, I took your 'dare' and read your linked article on FEMA - not really very daring since I usually read all the backup info people link. Seems pretty obvious from the article that the Bush administration wanted to push the burden for disaster mitigation back onto the states. The states, naturally, resisted this. No nefarious intent or incompetence there, just a difference of opinion on the role of the federal government.

Since the administration told the states about their intent, and the states refused to step up to fill the gap, we are left with a regrettable gap in our disaster mitigation efforts. But the administration was within its rights to make that decision.

Then we come to FEMA's performance during the flood. FEMA is supposed to coordinate the interaction among the various relief agencies, and handle federal compensation after the disaster. It doesn't actually provide relief itself. So its effectiveness is at the mercy of the response of the other agencies.

Also, why don't you lay some blame on the LA governor, who was late in calling for the National Guard? Why don't you blame the mayor, who didn't set proper guidelines on evacuation and looting?

Finally, my point with quoting the lack of concern of coastal residents was to point out that there wasn't much political pressure to change the administrations policy. And as a side note, your statement that "local people don't have the big picture is a reason why you have a FEMA" is exactly the sort of mind-numbing nanny-statism we abhor.

Also, why don't you lay some blame on the LA governor, who was late in calling for the National Guard? Why don't you blame the mayor, who didn't set proper guidelines on evacuation and looting?

Uhhh...let me guess! 'Cause they're Democrats?

I resent that.

Corps officials: Funding levels not to blame for flooding

Here's an interesting bit from Andrew Sullivan:

"'I'm not saying it wouldn't still be flooded, but I do feel that if it had been totally funded, there would be less flooding than you have,' said Michael Parker, a former Republican Mississippi congressman who headed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from October 2001 until March 2002, when he was ousted after publicly criticizing a Bush administration proposal to cut the corps' budget." - from the Chicago Tribune, noted by Josh Marshall.

But hey, I'm just a critic, and as we all know here, people who criticize Our Great President are not only unpatriotic -- they're not even human, just "ghouls." (I presume that includes Republicans who have a better grip of facts on the ground than Bush does?)

Raging Bee, How many times are you going to cut and paste this same nonsense? Despite what you hear from the DNC, repeating the same thing over and over and over does not make it true. But hey, if you want to tie your credibility to Michael Parker, be my guest.

Why don't you tell us what's wrong with Michael Parker's credibility? And while you're at it, why don't you tell us why the Republican Party nominated him to run for Congress, then put him in charge of the Army Corps of Engineers, if he's not credible or competent?

PS: I got this from Andrew Sullivan, not the DNC. Yeah, yeah, I know, Sullivan's an evil apostate and all that. Which only proves that people like you can't even fool your fellow conservatives. Deal with it.

Excellent work, Mr. Bee.

You're doing a fine job and further instructions and talking points are on their way!

Remember, "It's all Bush's fault!"

Raging Bee:
Doesn't really matter where you got it, since the entire liberal blogosphere has quoted the same excerpt (and Andrew Sullivan, BTW, has never been a serious conservative). It's about the 5th time it's been posted in the comments here.

As I mentioned on another thread, the fact that Parker was fired (over budget disputes) gives him an axe to grind. Maybe he's maintained his objectivity, but it's at least questionable.

Then, if you go up to digitalbrownshirts linked article, you find that the current head of the ACE says that Parker's wrong. And if you look at what Parker said, it doesn't make much sense in light of what happened. That is, the levees that failed were completed - the funding cuts didn't affect them.

Well said, geoff, but undoubtedly falling on deaf ears. Anybody who thinks AS is a conservative is past talking points and has progressed to full blown dementia.

...Parker was fired (over budget disputes)...

Something similar happened at DoD, where several senior officers were forced out for telling Bush and Rumsfeld that they'd need more troops to control Iraq than they were planning to send. Guess what we're finding out the hard way: THEY WERE RIGHT AND RUMMY WAS WRONG! That's why I'm more inclined to believe Parker in this case.

This is part of a pattern with Bush: come hell (terrorism and war) or high water (New Orleans), Bush will not be moved from his original number-one goal, "tax relief." No government project is so important that it can't be shortchanged to keep us from having to pay for what we need.

PS: Full disclosure -- speaking of tax relief, I got a check for about $600 back then. It was nice of Bush, but if he wants to buy my vote, he shouldn't do it with my money.

Outstanding! You combine terrorism, the war and Bush's reckless tax cuts in the same post!

Helluva job!

"where several senior officers were forced out for telling Bush and Rumsfeld that they'd need more troops"

Really? Care to tell us who these senior officers are or give us a link to your information?

"THEY WERE RIGHT AND RUMMY WAS WRONG"

Ok, tell me how many more troops we needed and what would have been the effect. Less casualties? I can't wait for this...

Raging Bee:
Now at last you've gotten to the crux. Yes the tax cuts were fueled in part by budget cuts throughout the federal budget, which resulted in scaling back many services. Bush made the cuts to reduce the tax burden on citizens, and thus to stimulate the economy. Lo and behold, the economy was stimulated - in complete opposition to Paul Krugman's predictions.

You can still argue that the tax cuts weren't worth it, that the cut services and increased deficit are worse than the recession was. I wouldn't agree, and I don't think any further discussion would bring us closer to agreement.

BrewFan: "The effect" of sending more troops to keep order in Iraq would have been: a more effective, credible and crushing response to the insurgency; fewer US and Iraqi casualties in the long term; more confidence in US forces, promises, and allies on the part of the Iraqi people; and thus more support for US policies on the part of the Iraqi people, the US public, and the rest of the world; and thus a greater likelihood of success.

a more effective, credible and crushing response to the insurgency;
fewer US and Iraqi casualties in the long term;

This is what I thought you'd say and your subsequent points rest upon this one so lets take a look at it. First, why didn't you answer the 'how many' question? If you have sources that say we should have had more troops certainly they told you how many. Well, the reason you can't find that number is because you could send 1,000,000 troops there and not affect the casualty count because of the type of asymetrical warfare thats being fought. An IED that takes out a supply convoy can not be prevented by an airborne infantry division. In this environment the economic law of diminishing returns is a good analogy for what would happen with more troops.

Lastly, it would make your opinions more credible if provided a citation about the 'senior officers' being fired for wanting more troops. There's no doubt a few retired general officers and one who was retiring made these recommendations but I've never seen any credible proof that a senior commander in the field has said we didn't have enough troops. And if you think general officers don't express such opinions I suggest you read Douglas MacArthur's biography.