[StBernard] Washington Post Editorial

[Westley Annis]

What I find ironic about this particular editorial in the D.C. Post is it's
the exact "opposite" editorial opinion of the New York Times.  The N.Y.
Times has stated more than once over the past six months that Congress
should immediatley appropriate the necessary funds to start raising New
Orleans levees to hurricane category 5 protection.  Did the N.Y Times
editors miss something the Washington Post didn't?  Actually, it's the Post
that lacking a thorough understanding of the situation.

As it turns out, the Washington Post editor's opinion was not a consensus
among its staff editors buy the opinion of only one editor, Sabastian
Mallaby, who has NEVER been to New Orleans, nor has he been here to learn of
the importance of the levee protection system - not only to residents, but
to protect oil and gas infrastructure - the very same oil and gas that keeps
his butt warm during the Washington winter.

Also ironic about Mr. Mallaby - he's not even an American.  He's from
Europe, in fact he's lived the lesser part of his life here in the states.
So how the hell can he say what is best for southeast Louisiana or the
United States.  Being a European, Mr. Mallaby cannot begin to understand the
prinicples or values we Americans have by which we base important decisions
that will affect our lives.

I find it very disburbing the Washington post would allow the opinion of a
foreigner to represent its publication - a forieigner who did not bother to
take the time to learn about Louisiana's history and the significance our
levee system has in that history.  I'm certain Mr. Mallaby is not aware of
the fact that the city for which his newspaper covers was a reclaimation
project - built upon a huge marsh area, pumped and drained of the water,
then tens of thousand of tons of dirt hauled in.  That's right, our nation's
capital was once a big swamp and considered by most engineers of that time
not to be a wise location to build a capital city.  The only difference
between New Orleans and Washington is D.C. is well above sea level.  Had it
not been - like New Orleans - Mr. Mallaby and all the other Washitonians
would be as knowledgeable as Louisianians on the importance of good levee
protection.

John Scurich


----- Original Message -----
From: "Westley Annis" <westley at da-parish.com>
To: <stbernard at da-parish.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 8:36 PM
Subject: [StBernard] Washington Post Editorial



> Know what your home is worth - before Katriana, after Katrina and now.

> Why do you need an appraisal? government buy-out; tax loss; SBA;

demolition records.

> Call 985-882-9421 or 504-722-6662 --- John Scurich and Assoc. 

> Appraisal

Services

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> ----

------

>

> Let your voice be heard!

> Tell the St. Bernard Citizens Recovery Committee what you think the 

> future of St. Bernard should be.

> Visit http://www.stbpcrc.com

> ----------------------------------------------------

>

> Not all emails sent through this list reflect the opinion of 

> da-parish.com or Westley Annis

> -----------------------------------------------------

> No messages distributed through this list are meant to be or should be 

> considered legal advice.  Please consult with your own personal 

> attorney for any legal questions you may have.

> -----------------------------------------------------

>

> This was in today's Washington Post - given the assessors debate, 

> levee board debate, allegations of Rep. Shepherd's blackmailing and 

> now this. I

am

> really beginning to believe that as soon as they are elected, most of

these

> idiots lose all common sense and/or their minds.

>

> Katrina's Unlearned Lessons

> A government agency admits error, and Congress wants to reward it.

>

> Wednesday, June 7, 2006; A22

>

>

> LAST WEEK the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers admitted responsibility for

much

> of the destruction of New Orleans. It was not true, as the Corps 

> initially had claimed, that its defenses failed because Congress had 

> authorized only Category 3 protection, with the result that Hurricane 

> Katrina overtopped

the

> city's floodwalls. Rather, Katrina was no stronger than a Category 2 

> storm by the time it came ashore, and many of the floodwalls let water 

> in

because

> they collapsed, not because they weren't high enough. As the Corps'

> own inquiry found, the agency committed numerous mistakes of design: 

> Its network of pumps, walls and levees was "a system in name only"; it 

> failed

to

> take into account the gradual sinking of the local soil; it closed its

ears

> when people pointed out these problems. The result was a national tragedy.

>

>

> You might think that the Corps' mea culpa would fuel efforts to reform 

> the agency. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) 

> are pushing a measure that would do just that, requiring that future 

> Corps proposals be subject to technical review by an independent 

> agency. But the stronger current in Congress goes in the opposite 

> direction. A measure

urged

> by Louisiana senators and written by Sens. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) 

> and Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) would loosen oversight of the Corps.

> Billions of dollars may be spent in ways that ignore the most basic

lessons

> from Katrina.

>

>

> Congress has already passed laws with language directing the Corps to

design

> a new flood-protection plan for Louisiana. The language encourages the 

> construction of Category 5 protections for the whole state, a project 

> that could cost tens of billions of dollars; it advertises its own 

> profligacy

by

> laying down that the flood-protection plan should be exempt from 

> cost-benefit analysis. The new measure, which is reportedly part of a 

> revised version of a water projects bill that will be unveiled 

> shortly, would lower the bar for congressional approval of whatever 

> Louisiana defenses the Corps sees fit to propose. Rather than 

> requiring full votes

in

> both chambers of Congress, the Corps' plan could be authorized by 

> votes in two committees that tend to rubber-stamp such projects.

>

>

> In the wake of Katrina, this is almost beyond belief. The Corps' 

> admission of its own technical shortcomings points to the need for 

> tougher

oversight,

> not less. And the New Orleans disaster has illustrated the folly of

building

> flood defenses for vulnerable low land: Some of the worst-hit areas 

> would not have been developed in the first place if the Corps hadn't 

> decided to build "protections" for them. Encouraging the Army Corps of 

> Engineers to build Category 5 defenses for all of Louisiana, including 

> parts that are sparsely populated for good reason, would not merely 

> cost billions that would be better spent on defending urban areas. It 

> would encourage settlement of more flood-prone land and set the stage 

> for the next

tragedy.

>

>                     C 2006 The Washington Post Company

>