OT: my prediction
Kurgan Gringioni
Afterwards, there will be the normal acrimonious finger pointing
amongst politicians of all stripes, but they will all miss the
fundamental point which is that a city shouldn't be located there in
the first place.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
ST
a7c4bf27-f710-4abc...@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan
Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What have you got against a Chocolate City??
Why.... You must be a racist!!
zzfra...@mac.com
>
> Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > levees will fail.
>
> > Afterwards, there will be the normal acrimonious finger pointing
> > amongst politicians of all stripes, but they will all miss the
> > fundamental point which is that a city shouldn't be located there in
> > the first place.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> What have you got against a Chocolate City??
> Why.... You must be a racist!!
If smoke 2 packs a day for 20 years and come down with lung cancer and
somebody points out that maybe smoking that much had to do with your
situation, is that racist? (Obviously not in this case but you get my
point.)
MyPostingID
>
> Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > levees will fail.
>
> > Afterwards, there will be the normal acrimonious finger pointing
> > amongst politicians of all stripes, but they will all miss the
> > fundamental point which is that a city shouldn't be located there in
> > the first place.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> What have you got against a Chocolate City??
> Why.... You must be a racist!!
It's my personal belief that many people who live in New Orleans are
white. At least, that was my experience when I lived there 40 years
ago.
Fred Fredburger
Either that or the winds will die down, there will be no lasting affect
and everyone will move on to other things. Until the next time.
Anton Berlin
Stupidcunt...
Most large cities are where they are because of some geographical
advantage, usually water (river, lake, bay)
Do you really think it makes more sense to build the Port of New
Orleans in Kansas?
DrollTroll
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7c4bf27-f710-4abc...@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Well, they could just stilt everything up 10-20 feet, fleet it up with
gondolas, piloted by cajun minstrels. A bayou Venice.
Canoe-ing instead of cycling.
Also a city-wide urinal.
--
DT
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.
bjwe...@gmail.com
Dumbass,
Because of its location at the mouth of the
Mississippi, and especially because of the
industries in the Gulf, and especially because
one of those industries is the oil industry,
there is going to be a city of New Orleans
there whether you like it or not.
The cheese-eating surrender monkeys who
founded the city were smart enough to build
on the high ground. (I guess this is because
they weren't willing to fight the Global War
on Water.) Having failed to follow their sensible
lead, we now have to either say "Oops, sorry,
you're on your own" or not. If we say oops sorry,
let's see if we also say oops sorry the next time
there's flooding in Iowa or a hurricane hits
the Carolinas.
However, the most vulnerable areas of NO have
probably not been resettled.
Ben
Ryan Cousineau
<76d71094-80c3-48ed...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Most ports, Dutch loonies excepted, are built above sea level.
That said, disasters happen. Eventually my hometown is going to get hit
by its somewhat overdue every-300ish-years earthquake. One of our more
prosperous suburbs is a river delta island that relies on dikes to stay
dry. They're pretty sure the damage won't be extraordinary, but...
Given the economic state of New Orleans before Katrina, much of the
emigration can be explained as people temporarily moving out of town to
locations that just happened to offer better economic opportunities, and
not having any good reason to move back.
And given that it was New Orleans, being evacuated to almost anywhere
but Detroit or the Appalachians was likely to offer that opportunity.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
Ted van de Weteringe
> Eventually my hometown is going to get hit
> by its somewhat overdue every-300ish-years earthquake.
Until that time, http://www.kentplacesoftware.com/products/BeerAlchemy.html
jon_banquer
Is it possible to create a decent levee system there?
Looks like they still have a long way to go.
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com/
Ryan Cousineau
Oohhhh....
The existence of that software is very nearly enough to make me want to
homebrew.
Michael Press
<rcousine-571E72.13532201092008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <76d71094-80c3-48ed...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 31, 9:42 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > levees will fail.
> > >
> > > Afterwards, there will be the normal acrimonious finger pointing
> > > amongst politicians of all stripes, but they will all miss the
> > > fundamental point which is that a city shouldn't be located there in
> > > the first place.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > K. Gringioni.
> >
> > Stupidcunt...
> >
> > Most large cities are where they are because of some geographical
> > advantage, usually water (river, lake, bay)
> >
> > Do you really think it makes more sense to build the Port of New
> > Orleans in Kansas?
>
> Most ports, Dutch loonies excepted, are built above sea level.
The sea port at New Orleans is above sea level.
--
Michael Press
Ryan Cousineau
Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Okay, most port cities...I assume all ocean ports are pretty much at the
same height...
SLAVE of THE STATE
wrote:
> On Aug 31, 7:42 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > levees will fail.
>
> > Afterwards, there will be the normal acrimonious finger pointing
> > amongst politicians of all stripes, but they will all miss the
> > fundamental point which is that a city shouldn't be located there in
> > the first place.
>
> If we say oops sorry,
> let's see if we also say oops sorry the next time
> there's flooding in Iowa or a hurricane hits
> the Carolinas.
As far as _guvmint policy_ goes, "Oops, sorry, you're on your own" is
the legal and superior policy (because politicizing anything turns any
_valid social concern/movement_ upside down and makes it inevitably
unfair).
What "I am from the guvmint and am here to help" does is offer
politicians the ability to claim credit for "helping" by spending
other people's money (illegally or illegitimately). It is new-age
"charity" and "altrusim." "I help the unfortunate by forcing someone
else to pay for it."
"Let me be charitable, here is the other guy's money." Only inside a
weirdo distorted morality -- caused by 100+ years of kommie influence
-- could such an idiot notion become commonplace and seem "normal."
That is how much the overton window has shifted to the make parasitism
seem normal.
All the asshole politicians were lining up to give away other peoples
money.
-----------
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the
means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making
them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my
youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that
the more public provisions were made for the poor the less they
provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the
contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for
themselves, and became richer." -- Benjamin Franklin, /The
Encouragement of Idleness/, 1766
Bill C
<<snipped>>
> "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the
> means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making
> them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my
> youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that
> the more public provisions were made for the poor the less they
> provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the
> contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for
> themselves, and became richer." -- Benjamin Franklin, /The
> Encouragement of Idleness/, 1766
Why did Ben hate America so much?
Bill C
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> On Sep 1, 11:41 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Aug 31, 7:42 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> levees will fail.
>>> Afterwards, there will be the normal acrimonious finger pointing
>>> amongst politicians of all stripes, but they will all miss the
>>> fundamental point which is that a city shouldn't be located there in
>>> the first place.
>
>> If we say oops sorry,
>> let's see if we also say oops sorry the next time
>> there's flooding in Iowa or a hurricane hits
>> the Carolinas.
>
>
> As far as _guvmint policy_ goes, "Oops, sorry, you're on your own" is
> the legal and superior policy
Please cite statutory authority to say "oops".
TIA,
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
kurgan
>
> > levees will fail.
>
> > Afterwards, there will be the normal acrimonious finger pointing
> > amongst politicians of all stripes, but they will all miss the
> > fundamental point which is that a city shouldn't be located there in
> > the first place.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> Because of its location at the mouth of the
> Mississippi, and especially because of the
> industries in the Gulf, and especially because
> one of those industries is the oil industry,
> there is going to be a city of New Orleans
> there whether you like it or not.
<snip>
Dumbass -
It's very possible (and practical) to put a city above sea level.
Just my opinion. Perhaps you live below sea level?
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Gunner Asch
He would be disgusted by Todays America and its welfare state.
If he wasnt a Quaker..Im sure he would be challenging Democrats to
duels
Gunner
Kurgan Gringioni
Franklin wasn't the idiot type.
From:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature/dueling.html
<snip>
Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were among the most prominent
Americans to condemn dueling. Franklin called duels a "murderous
practice…they decide nothing." And Washington, who undoubtedly needed
all the good soldiers he could get, congratulated one of his officers
for refusing a challenge, noting that "there are few military
decisions that are not offensive to one party or another."
<snip><end>
Scott
How do you feel about The Netherlands? Doesn't it have a similar
percentage of it's land area and a significantly greater percentage of
it's population below sea level than does New Orleans? Do you hate
the Dutch, too?
kurgan
I don't hate New Orleansians or the Dutch, but it is not practical in
the long term to put cities below sea level.
Check out this map of New Orleans levees. Building there is not a well-
reasoned decision.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/08/30/GR2005083001302.html
Gunner Asch
The Nethelands is not subject to hurricanes. If it were....it would
be a bay.
Gunner
Scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
One catastrophic levee failure in, oh, ... the history of the city.
Right, not practical to put a port city in the place best suited for a
port.
The issue isn't where they built the city, blame it on the need to
expand the city to include undesirable land which IS below sea level,
so that cheap housing can be built for the laborers who're required to
make the city thrive. You might have noted that the original city was
built above sea level and suffered little, if any, flooding due to the
levee failure associated with Katrina. It was predominantly the less
desirable areas inhabited by the lower income working class or the
welfare recipients who can't afford to live elsewhere that were
flooded. Sort of the exact opposite of those affected by wildfires in
So Cal, where only the rich can afford the homes in the hills, and
they are then the ones most affected by the fires.
Do you hate Californians, too?
Kurgan Gringioni
> On Sep 2, 6:13 pm, kurgan <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 2, 3:23 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 31, 8:42 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > levees will fail.
>
> > > > Afterwards, there will be the normal acrimonious finger pointing
> > > > amongst politicians of all stripes, but they will all miss the
> > > > fundamental point which is that a city shouldn't be located there in
> > > > the first place.
>
> > > > thanks,
>
> > > > K. Gringioni.
>
> > > How do you feel about The Netherlands? Doesn't it have a similar
> > > percentage of it's land area and a significantly greater percentage of
> > > it's population below sea level than does New Orleans? Do you hate
> > > the Dutch, too?
>
> > I don't hate New Orleansians or the Dutch, but it is not practical in
> > the long term to put cities below sea level.
>
> > Check out this map of New Orleans levees. Building there is not a well-
> > reasoned decision.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> One catastrophic levee failure in, oh, ... the history of the city.
> Right, not practical to put a port city in the place best suited for a
> port.
It's not the place best suited for a port.
Look at the map.
As an aside, most of New Orleans' workforce doesn't work for the port.
The biggest business there is tourism.
As for the port: good planning dictates that you leave the port above
water, like it is, forbid levee building and if necessary, bring in
laborers by train. Housing people below sea level, with water around
on all sides, is simply a bad infrastructure strategy in the long run.
It's already been proven.
I'm not alone. Read this professional assessment.
From:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ops/hurricane-risk-new-orleans.htm
New Orleans Hurricane Risk
As a result of its elevation near sea level, the Lake Pontchartrain
Basin is quite vulnerable to tropical storms and hurricanes.
Hurricanes are categorized by their windspeed in miles per hour (mph).
Hurricanes have affected the Louisiana coastline with a frequency that
peaks in September. Hurricanes with significant monetary or human loss
are memorialized by retiring their name.
In addition to its separation from the coast, the topography of the
land in the city of New Orleans is adverse. The city is surrounded by
a river levee system 25 feet high along its southern boundary, and by
hurricane protection levees about 15 feet high along the remaining
boundaries. Most of the land in the city is below sea level, with much
of the northern half of the city more than 5 feet below sea level.
About one half of the population of the city can’t and won’t evacuate
during a hurricane. Many people, about 200,000, do not have
automobiles or access to an automobile. There are an additional 20,000
special needs people that cannot be easily moved. Finally, there
several hundred thousand people that will not evacuate because of the
difficulty of actually evacuating and finding suitable shelters. The
hurricane protection levees surrounding the city are designed to
protect the city from a category slow 2 or fast category 3 hurricane.
Thus for any slow category 3, or category 4 or 5 hurricanes, the
possibility exists for flooding the metropolitan area of New Orleans.
The city of New Orleans averages 1.8 m (6 ft) below sea level,
resembling a shallow depression surrounded by levees and water.
The levee system in New Orleans is one of the most extensive in the
world. Levees are earthen structures, made of clay (sedimentary
particles smaller in diameter than sand and silt), in cross section
forming a truncated triangle. The base is commonly 10 times as wide as
the height. Floodwalls are concrete and steel walls, built atop a
levee, or in place of a levee, often where space is insufficient for a
levee's broad base.
Orleans Levee District, a quasi-governmental body, is resposponsible
for 129 miles of earthen levees, floodwalls, 190 floodgates, 2 flood
control structures, and 100 valves. The governor appoints six of the
board's eight members, and they serve at his pleasure. When a storm
approaches it is responsible for closing the hundreds of hurricane
protection floodgates and valves on levees surrounding the city. All
residents outside of these levees evacuate.
The District's General Fund accounts for all operating funds for the
daily operations of the Administrative Offices, Field Forces, Law
Enforcement and support operations necessary to maintain the Board's
level of services for flood protection and public safety.
The District's Special Levee Improvement Projects Fund (SLIP) accounts
for the capital funds for major maintenance and/or capital
improvements of all physical property and plant owned by the Board
that is identified as directly related to flood protection.
The District's General Improvement Fund accounts for the capital funds
for major maintenance or capital improvement of all physical property
and plant owned by the Board that is not identified as directly
related to flood protection. These projects relate to land
reclamation, commercial buildings, improvements (other than
buildings), and infrastructure.
The Orleans Marina currently operates with 355 open slips, 66
boathouses, a Harbor Master Office, as well as related marine
amenities. The South Shore Harbor Marina was officially dedicated
September 19, 1987. The Marina operates with 447 open slips, 26 cover
slips, marina center, fuel dock, and Harbor Master Office as well as
related marina amenities. The Belle of Orleans gaming operation is
housed at South Shore Harbor and is the principal tenant in the
harbor. The annual operations require a subsidy to satisfy the
operating shortfall resulting from a substantial debt service
requirement on the outstanding Marina Public Improvement bonds.
The New Orleans Lakefront Airport commercially operates with 3 fixed
base operators, 13 office tenants, and 10 hangar occupants. A
hydrocarbon aviation fuel farm facility is used for on-site sales of
all aviation fuels at Lakefront Airport. The annual operations require
a subsidy to satisfy the operating short-fall resulting from the labor
intensive costs of daily operations of Administration, Fire Safety and
Maintenance, as well as the reimbursement to the General Fund for an
advance used for the early call of the $4,000,000 Fuel Farm Revenue
Bonds.
The Mississippi River, which starts at tiny Lake Itasca in Minnesota,
is the third largest drainage basin in the world covering 41% of the
48 continuous United States. The river has always been a threat to the
security of the valley through which it flows. Major flooding in 1912,
1913, and 1927 destroyed millions of dollars of property. After the
flood of 1927 Congress passed the Flood Control Act of 1928. This
legislation authorized the Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T)
project. This project oversees four major flood control methods:
Levees, Floodways, Tributary Basin Improvements, and Channel
Improvement and Stabilization.
After periods of high water, the Mississippi River's channel at many
places is too shallow, too narrow, or too difficult for navigation.
The New Orleans District has maintained continuous efforts to improve
and stabilize the channel by constructing dikes, revetments, cutoffs,
and dredging. The levee setback, as shown above, affords only
temporary protection against the river. Once made, it is just a matter
of time before the river threatens the relocated levee. To hold the
river in the desired alignment and maintain the levee system, its
banks are stabalized with revetments.
Furthermore, storm vulnerability is made worse by ongoing wetland loss
and barrier island erosion. The Basin is home to more than one million
people and is extremely important to the vitality of the Gulf of
Mexico ecosystem. For these and many other reasons, it is important to
study past tropical storm events to be better prepared for future
events.
Prior to 1965, New Orleans had suffered substantial losses of
protective barrier islands and wetlands and developed an elaborate
system of flood control measures. After Hurricane Betsy struck in
1965, causing more than $1 billion in damages,i hundreds of millions
of dollars were spent to upgrade the flood control system that now
includes more than 520 miles of levees, 270 floodgates, 92 pumping
stations, and thousands of miles of drainage canals. While the new
protections did reduce risks to people and property in developed
areas, they also encouraged additional development in flood-prone
regions. Jefferson Parish and the adjoining Orleans Parish ranked
first and second among communities receiving repeat payments for
damage claims under the National Flood Insurance Program between 1978
and 1995. These two communities alone accounted for 20 percent of the
properties with repeat losses, at an average of nearly three claims
per property, for a total of $308 million in claims.
New Orleans’ protective levees are designed to withstand only a
moderate (Category 3) hurricane storm surge. The flooding occurs by
overtopping of the hurricane protection levees along the lake shore.
Were they to fail, according to some estimates the city and
surrounding areas could suffer upward of $25 billion in property
losses and 25,000–100,000 deaths by drowning.
Four storms represent some of the most devastating, and therefore some
of the most studied storms, in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin during the
Twentieth Century.
Hurricane of 1947 (September 04-21, 1947)
The 1947 Hurricane made landfall near the Chandeleur Islands, LA on
September 19, 1947. Wind gusts of 112 mph and a central pressure of
967 millibars (mb) were measured at Moisant International Airport. A
storm surge of 3.0 m (9.8 ft) reached Shell Beach, Lake Borgne.
Moisant Airport fields were under 0.6 m (2 ft) of water while
Jefferson Parish was flooded to depths of 1.0 m (3.28 ft). New Orleans
suffered $100 million in damages. Total loss of life was 51 persons.
As a result of this storm, hurricane protection levees were built
along the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain to protect Orleans and
Jefferson Parishes from future storm surges.
Hurricane Betsy (August 08-27, 1965)
Betsy was a fast moving storm (22 mph forward speed) that made
landfall at Grand Isle, LA on September 10, 1965. The central pressure
at landfall was 948 mb. Grand Isle experienced 160 mph gusts and a 4.8
m (15.7 ft) storm surge that flooded the entire island. Winds gusted
to 125 mph in New Orleans with a 3.0 m (9.8 ft) storm surge that
caused the worst flooding in decades. Winds reached 100 mph over most
of southeast Louisiana and exceeded 60 mph as far inland as Monroe,
LA. Offshore oil rigs, public utilities, and commercial boats all
suffered severe damage. Loss of life from Betsy was a total of 81
persons, with 58 in the state of Louisiana. Damage in Southeast
Louisiana totaled $1.4 billion. The Orleans Levee Board raised the
existing levee to a height of 12 ft in response to the flooding caused
by Betsy.
Hurricane Camille (August 14-22, 1969)
Camille intensified rapidly in the Gulf of Mexico, reaching Category 5
status by August 16. The small-diameter hurricane headed NE at 14 mph
and made landfall in a sparsely populated section of the Mississippi
coast on August 17. Wind estimates during landfall reached 175 mph.
Atmospheric pressure at landfall was 901 millibars, second only to the
Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 (892 millibars) as the most powerful storm
ever to reach the U.S. coast. The storm surge generated by Camille
flooded areas from lower Plaquemines Parish, LA to Perdido Pass, AL.
The storm surge exceeded 24 ft in Pass Christian, MS. A 4.6 m (15 ft)
storm surge inundated Boothville, LA. Storm surge reached 2.7 m (9 ft)
in the Rigolets and 1.4 m (4.6 ft) in Mandeville, LA. The confirmed
U.S death total was 258. Louisiana damages totalled $350 million.
Structural damage at landfall was near complete. Louisiana damage was
severe south of Empire, LA. New Orleans would have been flooded if the
hurricane had followed a track about 10 miles to the west of its
actual track. The storm was a category 5 storm and produced flooding
of over 20 feet along the Mississippi coast.
Hurricane Georges (September 15 - October 01, 1998)
Georges did extensive damage to Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Puerto
Rico and other Caribbean islands. Georges made final U.S. landfall
near Biloxi, MS on September 28. The maximum sustained surface wind at
landfall was 104 mph and the minimum central pressure was 964 mb.
Maximum storm surge in Louisiana was 2.7 m (8.9 ft) at Point à la
Hache. Maximum surge along the U.S. Gulf Coast was 3.4 m (11 ft) in
Pascagoula, MS. Georges severely eroded the Chandeleur Islands which
are the first line of storm surge defense for southeast Louisiana and
southern Mississippi. Total loss of life was 460 persons, all outside
of Louisiana. Dozens of camps not protected by levees were destroyed
along the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain. Hurricane Georges was
forecast (advisory 44) to have a speed that was so slow that the storm
produced flooding that was a full category higher that its category
2-3 intensity. Actually the storm moved to the east and missed the
city. When Georges appeared headed for New Orleans, the Superdome was
opened as a shelter and an estimated 14,000 people poured in. But
there were problems, including theft and vandalism, and people were
cooped up in the Superdome for days. Georges again showed the
vulnerability of New Orleans to hurricanes, and efforts resumed the
following year to improve the levee system along the canals that
connect the city with the Lake.
Hurricane Ivan (September 14 2004)
Although Hurricane Ivan did not cause significant damage in New
Orleans, the Class 4 hurricane did expose shortcomings in the city's
evacuation plans. More than 1 million people tried to leave the city
and surrounding suburbs on Tuesday September 14, 2004, creating a
traffic jam as bad as or worse than the evacuation that followed
Georges. In the afternoon, state police reversing inbound lanes on
southeastern Louisiana interstates to provide more escape routes. But
the state police never expected the 60 miles between New Orleans and
Baton Rouge would turn into a seven-hour-long crawl. Those too poor to
leave the city had to find their own shelter - a policy that was
eventually reversed, but only a few hours before the deadly storm
struck land.
Scott
> On Sep 3, 9:43 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 2, 6:13 pm, kurgan <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 2, 3:23 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 31, 8:42 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > levees will fail.
>
> > > > > Afterwards, there will be the normal acrimonious finger pointing
> > > > > amongst politicians of all stripes, but they will all miss the
> > > > > fundamental point which is that a city shouldn't be located there in
> > > > > the first place.
>
> > > > > thanks,
>
> > > > > K. Gringioni.
>
> > > > How do you feel about The Netherlands? Doesn't it have a similar
> > > > percentage of it's land area and a significantly greater percentage of
> > > > it's population below sea level than does New Orleans? Do you hate
> > > > the Dutch, too?
>
> > > I don't hate New Orleansians or the Dutch, but it is not practical in
> > > the long term to put cities below sea level.
>
> > > Check out this map of New Orleans levees. Building there is not a well-
> > > reasoned decision.
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > One catastrophic levee failure in, oh, ... the history of the city.
> > Right, not practical to put a port city in the place best suited for a
> > port.
>
> It's not the place best suited for a port.
>
> Look at the map.
>
> As an aside, most of New Orleans' workforce doesn't work for the port.
> The biggest business there is tourism.
>
> As for the port: good planning dictates that you leave the port above
> water, like it is, forbid levee building and if necessary, bring in
> laborers by train. Housing people below sea level, with water around
> on all sides, is simply a bad infrastructure strategy in the long run.
> It's already been proven.
> - Show quoted text -
You're right, most folks there don't work at the port, but of course,
I didn't say they did. What I DID say was that the workers there are
required to allow the city to thrive, which is to say that they work
in various industry, all required for the success of the city.
You won't get an argument out of me that they shouldn't have built up,
at least not as extensively as they did, the areas surrounding the
original city that are below sea level. But, you'll have a hard time
turning back a centuries-old tradition of New Orleans as it was pre-
Katrina. Folks will live there (below sea level) because folks want
to BE in New Orleans and it's all they can afford. I don't get it,
but apparently folks who live there feel something about the city that
just doesn't appeal to me.
Kurgan Gringioni
> On Sep 3, 12:42 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 3, 9:43 am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 2, 6:13 pm, kurgan <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 2, 3:23 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 31, 8:42 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > levees will fail.
>
> > > > > > Afterwards, there will be the normal acrimonious finger pointing
> > > > > > amongst politicians of all stripes, but they will all miss the
> > > > > > fundamental point which is that a city shouldn't be located there in
> > > > > > the first place.
>
> > > > > > thanks,
>
> > > > > > K. Gringioni.
>
> > > > > How do you feel about The Netherlands? Doesn't it have a similar
> > > > > percentage of it's land area and a significantly greater percentage of
> > > > > it's population below sea level than does New Orleans? Do you hate
> > > > > the Dutch, too?
>
> > > > I don't hate New Orleansians or the Dutch, but it is not practical in
> > > > the long term to put cities below sea level.
>
> > > > Check out this map of New Orleans levees. Building there is not a well-
> > > > reasoned decision.
>
Granted, New Orleans has a feel to it that is unique in the world,
but, in my opinion, keeping a city in that location simply isn't
practical in the long run.
Especially if there's a sea level rise. It won't take much - just a
few feet and NO will be history.
bjwe...@gmail.com
> On Sep 1, 11:41 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 7:42 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > levees will fail.
>
> > > Afterwards, there will be the normal acrimonious finger pointing
> > > amongst politicians of all stripes, but they will all miss the
> > > fundamental point which is that a city shouldn't be located there in
> > > the first place.
>
> > Dumbass,
>
> > Because of its location at the mouth of the
> > Mississippi, and especially because of the
> > industries in the Gulf, and especially because
> > one of those industries is the oil industry,
> > there is going to be a city of New Orleans
> > there whether you like it or not.
>
>
> It's very possible (and practical) to put a city above sea level.
>
> Just my opinion. Perhaps you live below sea level?
Dumbass,
I live in Arizona 2500 feet above MSL, and global
warming is going to cook me out before it floods
me out. Look elsewhere.
However, I also recognize that in some sense
it's unsustainable, in terms of water and power,
to have 6.3 million people living in Arizona
and more every day. It's not as dramatic as a
storm surge in N.O. but it's not clear that it
makes so much more sense in the long term.
The Anasazi packed up and left for a reason.
You, Fat Stevie, Michael Press and Tom Kunich
all squeal and point fingers at the problems, be it
corruption or impracticality, of New Orleans. But
you all live in California. Next time there's a big
earthquake, wildfire, or drought, you'll call the
rest of the US, and we'll pick up. That's fine;
just as New Orleans has to exist, California has
to exist, though maybe there are parts of both that
people shouldn't have built on. People who live
in California glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
If the US was populated according to a strict cost-benefit
calculation (paging Greg White and Salma Hayek),
there'd be a lot more people living in Asspimple,
Wisconsin two towns over from Bob Schwartz.
Or at least somewhere in the northeast / mid-atlantic /
midwest.
Wisconsin ain't that bad (if you haven't lost your fur)
and way too much of the Bay Area is built on fill.
But if you gave me a choice between Chung's job
in Berkeley, or a big house and life of luxury in
Asspimple, WI, I know which I'd take.
Ben
Ryan Cousineau
<e22fcbf1-6d81-4285...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Kurgan Gringioni <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Median IPCC estimate appears to be about a foot by 2090. And it will be
gradual.
Not that I'm a particular fan of dyking back hurricanes, but that's an
awfully long time for the Corps of Engineers to add a foot.
Donald Munro
> People who live in California glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
<http://www.theglasshouse.us/v1/home.html>
> But if you gave me a choice between Chung's job in Berkeley, or a
> big house and life of luxury in Asspimple, WI, I know which I'd take.
Thats just because the Californians get the biggest slice of the
SOTS grant pie.
Donald Munro
> Especially if there's a sea level rise. It won't take much - just a few
> feet and NO will be history.
That's evolution baby.
Kurgan Gringioni
<snip>
Dumbass -
If San Diego (where I live) were built below sea level, next to the
ocean, behind levees, I'd say the same thing.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Kurgan Gringioni
> In article
> <e22fcbf1-6d81-4285-a11b-6d8a672c0...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Dumbass -
There's the entire Florida coast, most of the rest of costal
Louisiana, Manhattan, etc.
New Orleans isn't worth the concentration of resources. We may not see
it in our lifetime, but eventually it'll fall victim to a hard cost/
benefit analysis.
I wouldn't say the same thing about Manhattan.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Robert Chung
> But if you gave me a choice between Chung's job
> in Berkeley, or a big house and life of luxury in
> Asspimple, WI, I know which I'd take.
What if Greg were a Wisconsin taxpayer?
Bob Schwartz
The future of skiing in Asspimple, WI lies in artificial
snow. Once we get Greg to pop for that, life is good.
Of course Lake Superior is a big ass snowmaking machine
and will stay a big ass snowmaking machine for the
remainder of my lifetime. Thank God for that. My kid
will have to rely on the snow guns.
It would totally suck to be as far from reliable snow
as Berkeley is.
Bob Schwartz
William Asher
The beauty of feeding at the federal trough is that you can live in
Asspimple, WI and still have Greg working in California to pay for your
afternoon training rides.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
>
> Median IPCC estimate appears to be about a foot by 2090. And it will
> be gradual.
>
> Not that I'm a particular fan of dyking back hurricanes, but that's an
> awfully long time for the Corps of Engineers to add a foot.
>
It's more than a foot because the real issue is storm surge. If the
mean rise were slow and gradual and there were no such thing as
tropical/extratropical cyclones everything would be copacetic. But the
surge associated with storms amplifies the sea level rise.
It is also not a trivial task to increase the height of a flood wall, since
the lateral and vertical hydrostatic pressure at the base is the limiting
factor in the height, and you can't add height without making the base
bigger (you get infiltration under the structure and then the pressure
pushes the wall out from the bottom (if you google around about the
engineering issues with dams you will see what I am talking about (this
also was how the levee failed during Katrina, I think))).
Sea level rise is a huge issue, 1-2 feet will be catastrophic. Also, keep
in mind that in the community, the conclusions of the IPCC are generally
accepted as being on the very conservative side and the real effects a
likely to be larger. If the seas have only risen by 25 cm in 2100, we will
have been very fortunate.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
No, that's natural selection. Evolution would be when a random mutation
allows a certain fraction of the population to survive under water.
--
Bill Asher
SLAVE of THE STATE
> Granted, New Orleans has a feel to it that is unique in the world,
> but, in my opinion, keeping a city in that location simply isn't
> practical in the long run.
Yes, but how are politicians to get a few votes if they don't promise
to rebuild, spending other people's money?
Why do you hate the children of NO?
Cliff
wrote:
>One catastrophic levee failure in, oh, ... the history of the city.
>Right, not practical to put a port city in the place best suited for a
>port.
IIRC The French put it there long ago.
The only practical/possible place for hundreds of miles.
Even then it's about a hundred miles upstream from the Gulf.
And it sinks.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It's not the place best suited for a port.
>
>Look at the map.
Can you find a higher place large enough on the river closer to the Gulf?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Median IPCC estimate appears to be about a foot by 2090. And it will be
>gradual.
Those medians are a bit old & stale & seem to have erred
on the low (conservative) side.
Take the highest & think "worse".
--
Cliff
Cliff
<bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>> As far as _guvmint policy_ goes, "Oops, sorry, you're on your own" is
>> the legal and superior policy
>
> Please cite statutory authority to say "oops".
It's a somewhat new law.
Praise bushco.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
Storms in the area can be just as bad & it's not a bay.
>Gunner
HTH
--
Cliff
SLAVE of THE STATE
Sure, it is unsustainable the same way the New York City does not have
the "internal natural resources" to exist (on its own). Which means
your comment is at best vague, and worse is meaningless.
Maybe you should learn about trade and capitalism. It might change
how you view the world, giving you a more realistic model. If you are
a scientist -- and I think you are -- you ought to be curious about
how the world you live in works.
If you liked what you learned in physical and cultural anthropology,
take the next lesson. Read some particular Hayek stuff. As a bonus,
then you'll know Brad DeLong has his head up his ass (at times,
anyway).
> It's not as dramatic as a
> storm surge in N.O. but it's not clear that it
> makes so much more sense in the long term.
> The Anasazi packed up and left for a reason.
>
> You, Fat Stevie, Michael Press and Tom Kunich
> all squeal and point fingers at the problems, be it
> corruption or impracticality, of New Orleans.
Personally, I could not care less whether NO exists or not exists. I
would not even stop people from building there. But I wouldn't pay to
fix it.
I would tell people who comtemplated living there:
Dumbass, you are building below sea level. The levees could fail in a
variety of ways. "We" do not guarantee them. We won't promise to "be
there" to bail you out. Your property could be destroyed, and you and
your loved ones could die, are you sure you want to do that?
> But
> you all live in California. Next time there's a big
> earthquake, wildfire, or drought, you'll call the
> rest of the US, and we'll pick up. That's fine;
> just as New Orleans has to exist, California has
> to exist, though maybe there are parts of both that
> people shouldn't have built on. People who live
> in California glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
My clown car, being small, is hard to hit, and is not all glass.
More seriously, the fire possiblity scares the f-ing crap out of me
because I could have a hard time getting out. It could kill me, like
driving a clown car on the highway. So could an earthquake, but I
don't freak as much about that.
You don't have to help. You can if you want to.
> If the US was populated according to a strict cost-benefit
> calculation (paging Greg White and Salma Hayek),
> there'd be a lot more people living in Asspimple,
> Wisconsin two towns over from Bob Schwartz.
My dear friend Ben,
You and my buddy Don ought to stop saying I do some sort of "strict
cost-benefit calculation," or other such nonsense. I don't say such
things. I do say perceptions of costs (in the broadest sense) are
important in resulting actions. But I am subjectivist in the sense
that I don't pretend to know people's values with sufficient clarity.
"Values" are the base motivation and they are not necessarily
observable in an objective sense (probably not). I don't pretend to
know how any individual would value living in CA compared to WI, and
compared to all the other opportunities available to that individual
and in the temporal frame. This means I don't pretend to be able to
do "strict cost-benefit calculations." I don't. I am actually the
last one to do it, and it is ironic I am accused first. Bizarro.
I plead that I have been misunderstood and misunderestimated.
> Or at least somewhere in the northeast / mid-atlantic /
> midwest.
>
> Wisconsin ain't that bad (if you haven't lost your fur)
> and way too much of the Bay Area is built on fill.
> But if you gave me a choice between Chung's job
> in Berkeley, or a big house and life of luxury in
> Asspimple, WI, I know which I'd take.
Yeah, but what has Bob already chosen? He is a different person, with
different values. Moreover, he has a highly successful software
business and could live wherever he wants. What does that say?
Donald Munro
>>> Especially if there's a sea level rise. It won't take much - just a few
>>> feet and NO will be history.
Donald Munro wrote:
>> That's evolution baby.
William Asher wrote:
> No, that's natural selection. Evolution would be when a random mutation
> allows a certain fraction of the population to survive under water.
You confuse all the issues with facts. No wonder Kunich has you killfiled
and blackballed.
Anyway Ms Palin will tell you to ban all that stuff and forcefeed
creationism as "science". Not that China for example would mind much if
the US becomes the world leader in cargo cult science.
Donald Munro
> My dear friend Ben,
>
> You and my buddy Don ought to stop saying I do some sort of "strict
> cost-benefit calculation," or other such nonsense. I don't say such
> things. I do say perceptions of costs (in the broadest sense) are
> important in resulting actions. But I am subjectivist in the sense that I
> don't pretend to know people's values with sufficient clarity. "Values"
> are the base motivation and they are not necessarily observable in an
> objective sense (probably not). I don't pretend to know how any
> individual would value living in CA compared to WI, and compared to all
> the other opportunities available to that individual and in the temporal
> frame. This means I don't pretend to be able to do "strict cost-benefit
> calculations." I don't. I am actually the last one to do it, and it is
> ironic I am accused first. Bizarro.
But you will be pleased to know there is some measure of your generosity
towards your pets:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Return_on_Investment>
(And Chung will just love all the wikipedia citations)
Ted van de Weteringe
> copacetic.
Alas, no first use in rbr.
> I think))).
Lisp nerd.
> Sea level rise is a huge issue, 1-2 feet will be catastrophic.
No way! It does call for some Dutch inventiveness like
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b7b_1212719951
SLAVE of THE STATE
> But you will be pleased to know there is some measure of your generosity
> towards your pets:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Return_on_Investment>
Anytime the word "social" precedes something that would otherwise be
ordinary and understandable by itself, a zillion alarm bells go off.
For example, "social" justice. It has nothing to do with justice. I
argue that it is the antithesis of justice.
There was a link in there (wiki) to "corporate sustainability." Wow,
whacko, nutjob, crazy shit.
Donald Munro
>> But you will be pleased to know there is some measure of your generosity
>> towards your pets:
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Return_on_Investment>
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> Anytime the word "social" precedes something that would otherwise be
> ordinary and understandable by itself, a zillion alarm bells go off.
I thought you would appreciate all the citations.
William Asher
> William Asher schreef:
>> copacetic.
>
> Alas, no first use in rbr.
It was going to be hard to top "sesquipedalianism" anyway.
>
>> I think))).
>
> Lisp nerd.
I believe you meant gay lisp nerd.
>> Sea level rise is a huge issue, 1-2 feet will be catastrophic.
>
> No way! It does call for some Dutch inventiveness like
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b7b_1212719951
Why the Dutch didn't conquer the world is a great mystery. My guess is
after Verhoeven made "Soldier of Orange" the entire country took a year
off, and that was the difference.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
She would probably be ok with interpreting that as part of god's plan.
--
Bill Asher
Donald Munro
William Asher wrote:
> I believe you meant gay lisp nerd.
And by transitive closure a lisping liberal. Come to think of it
transitive closure sounds a little gay and probably indiscreet.
Carl Sundquist
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10fb964a-df8f-4d40...@s20g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Dumbass -
If San Diego (where I live) were built below sea level, next to the
ocean, behind levees, I'd say the same thing.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
--------------------
How close were the fires to your house a couple of years ago?
SLAVE of THE STATE
> Anyway Ms Palin will tell you to ban all that stuff and forcefeed
> creationism as "science".
Here's my rant:
Really? Who cares? It is arguing about polishing the kitchen table
while the building is burning. But what about xerObama (zero
experience, and just "present," otherwise a carbon copy of every
statist ass to come down the pike the last 80 years) who wants to
establish The State as Religion, but just won't be up front about it.
He wants to get the kids into STATE run schools where he can brainwash
them (the euphemistic phrase is "to socialize"). THis is a long drawn
out process (fabianism) where it is not understood until it is too
late. He wants to stand on the shoulders of the giants who came before
him. I laugh, you laugh, but it is painfully funny because it isn't
so far off the reality of the situation. The fact that he and GWB are
unaware of what they are permits no comfort.
Simple solution: abolish STATE run educational systems, then none of
the whiners can snivel about religious moralists getting creationism
taught in publik skools. (In the USA, Fedzilla involvement is illegal
anyway. Every jackass wants control of the guvmint largesse;
everything gets politicized when you turn it over to the state. This
is a fact of the nature of power. It is only managable by cutting the
power off at the knees in the first place. So many nutz think they
can control Frankenstein, and whine endlessly about "special
interests," never facing the rude fact that they mixed the agar for
growing Frankenstein.) That way, people with poor models of reality
can be selected out by nature. If you believe creationism is not just
wrong, but harmful, then those will get selected out by less success.
If it is just wrong, but not so harmful, then it doesn't matter if
someone believes in the tooth fairy. I also argue that certain moral
rules of conduct, often coincident to religious beliefs, are actually
beneficial.
A parent is the first and natural trustee of their "incompetent"
offspring. They have every natural power and right to teach stuff
that is wrong. You and I don't get to have a say. Why do people fear
and hate freedom? Because they can't control others if freedom
exists, that is why.
If my choice in the US is between the "christian right," and statists
on the left (religion of The State), then I choose the christian
right, even though I have no belief in the supernatural.
The issue is control: statists essentially want to control others and
use them. (Treat them as chattel.) Statists are evil.
One World, Under Obama, with Duty and Slavery for all.
SLAVE of THE STATE
> On Aug 31, 7:42 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > levees will fail.
>
> > Afterwards, there will be the normal acrimonious finger pointing
> > amongst politicians of all stripes, but they will all miss the
> > fundamental point which is that a city shouldn't be located there in
> > the first place.
>
>
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> Is it possible to create a decent levee system there?
>
> Looks like they still have a long way to go.
First, the grant application must be written. Please follow the
procedure.
Howard Kveck
wrote:
One other factor that in the problems New Orleans has that hasn't been mentioned
is the loss of coastal wetlands downstream from the port. These wetlands have
historically been a big help in absorbing the impact of hurricanes coming in there.
There's a quick summation of it here:
http://www.wamsucc.org/katrina-public-policy.html
--
tanx,
Howard
The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
bjwe...@gmail.com
> On Sep 4, 12:43 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > However, I also recognize that in some sense
> > it's unsustainable, in terms of water and power,
> > to have 6.3 million people living in Arizona
> > and more every day.
>
> Sure, it is unsustainable the same way the New York City does not have
> the "internal natural resources" to exist (on its own). Which means
> your comment is at best vague, and worse is meaningless.
No, that means New York City is not self-sufficient, not that
it's unsustainable. I'm not talking about whether or not you
grow your vegetables in your backyard, but for example,
whether you are getting your water by pumping down an
aquifer that will eventually recede below the reach of your
pumps, or relying on snowmelt during a long term trend
of diminishing rainfall.
Yes, of course, if you have enough money, you can
buy and import water from someplace else, but at some
point the cost of the lifestyle to which people are accustoming
themselves will become much higher than they had planned.
It's like one of those fancy balloon mortgages - also
unsustainable, for the majority of people. Or buying a
Hummer without accounting for the possibility that
gas might go above $4/gallon.
Yes and no. I didn't mean that you would advocate a
strict accounting of other people's values. Rather, people
who live in, say, CA or NO don't see a strict accounting of
the contribution of disaster relief - or even things like
water infrastructure - to their cost of living, because it gets
hidden in taxes, aka Guvmint Will Provide.
People don't tot up the actual cost of living in Berkeley
vs. Asspimple, WI and compare, because many costs
are hidden and some are probably very difficult to
calculate (What's the chance that a devastating
earthquake or fire will take out your house before
you move? Anywhere from 1-25% ? How do you
account rationally for unlikely but devastating events
if you aren't an insurance company?)
Of course, heating costs in WI will be pretty substantial,
unless global warming hurries up as much as Ryan
wants.
Ben
Kurgan Gringioni
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Dumbass -
Close, but I built it out of steel and concrete and stucco and it was
sprinklered. No structural wood in it whatsoever, although it had
decorative wood flooring. Steel studs. Lived on the edge of a canyon,
but I doubt it would've burned unless the temperature got extremely
high.
I'm not a hypocrite about stuff like that.
As an aside, my family has built well north of 500 residential units
over the last 3 decades and we (and most any other builder) will tell
you that the most difficult thing to control is water. 90% of lawsuits
brought against builders by the buyers have to do with water and that
water is rainwater and snowmelt. Storm surge from a hurricane (or any
other flooding) is infinitely more difficult to control. I personally
would never even want to attempt it. IMO, it's pure hubris to think
that one can be successful over the long run. Try surfing some big
waves sometime and Mother Nature will show you who's boss.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Kurgan Gringioni
wrote:
>
> People don't tot up the actual cost of living in Berkeley
> vs. Asspimple, WI and compare, because many costs
> are hidden and some are probably very difficult to
> calculate (What's the chance that a devastating
> earthquake or fire will take out your house before
> you move?
<snip>
Dumbass -
You just build so that the place won't burn and won't go down in an
earthquake. I'm not just saying that - when I built a place it was
designed for earthquakes, fire and 100mph winds (even though we never
get 100mph wind). Structural steel and reinforced concrete. Much
better than wood framing (except from a cost standpoint) - you can
actually get a straight wall. Doesn't warp, doesn't settle. Place is
nice and quiet when it's done. No incessant popping and snapping.
And peace of mind. All my neighbors got termite-tented and freaked out
when the wildfires came.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
Donald Munro
>> Anyway Ms Palin will tell you to ban all that stuff and forcefeed
>> creationism as "science".
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> Here's my rant:
>
> Really? Who cares? It is arguing about polishing the kitchen table while
> the building is burning. But what about xerObama (zero experience, and
> just "present," otherwise a carbon copy of every statist ass to come down
> the pike the last 80 years) who wants to establish The State as Religion,
> but just won't be up front about it. He wants to get the kids into STATE
> run schools where he can brainwash them (the euphemistic phrase is "to
> socialize").
Religions have been brainwashing people for the last 1000+ years and
seem to be much more effective at it than any state.
Teaching science at school whether it be physics, mathematics or biology
isn't brainwashing. If the science teacher is any good the pupils should
end up more sceptical and less likely to believe everything they're told.
> A parent is the first and natural trustee of their "incompetent"
> offspring. They have every natural power and right to teach stuff that is
> wrong. You and I don't get to have a say. Why do people fear and hate
> freedom? Because they can't control others if freedom exists, that is
> why.
The morality of brainwashing children with religion by parents or
"statism" by states adopting children as in 1984 are equally questionable.
What "natural" right does anyone have to control someone elses thinking ?
Donald Munro
> You just build so that the place won't burn and won't go down in an
> earthquake. I'm not just saying that - when I built a place it was
> designed for earthquakes, fire and 100mph winds (even though we never get
> 100mph wind). Structural steel and reinforced concrete. Much better than
> wood framing (except from a cost standpoint) - you can actually get a
> straight wall. Doesn't warp, doesn't settle. Place is nice and quiet when
> it's done. No incessant popping and snapping.
>
> And peace of mind. All my neighbors got termite-tented and freaked out
> when the wildfires came.
Now all you need is a nuclear fallout shelter for when Kunich acquires
WMD.
Cliff
"Small Gods" by Terry Pratchett ---
From : http://www.terrypratchettbooks.com/discworld/smallgods.html
[
Now consider the tortoise and the eagle.
The tortoise is a ground-living creature. It is impossible to live nearer the
ground without being under it. Its horizons are a few inches away. It has about
as good a turn of speed as you need to hunt down a lettuce. It has survived
while the rest of evolution flowed past it by being, on the whole, no threat to
anyone and too much trouble to eat.
And then there is the eagle. A creature of the air and high places, whose
horizons go all the way to the edge of the world. Eyesight keen enough to spot
the rustle of some small and squeaky creature half a mile away. All power, all
control. Lightning death on wings. Talons and claws enough to make a meal of
anything smaller than it is and at least take a hurried snack out of anything
bigger.
And yet the eagle will sit for hours on the crag and survey the kingdoms of the
world until it spots a distant movement and then it will focus, focus, focus on
the small shell wobbling among the bushes down there on the desert. And it will
leap . . .
And a minute later the tortoise finds the world dropping away from it. And it
sees the world for the first time, no longer one inch from the ground but five
hundred feet above it, and it thinks: what a great friend I have in the eagle.
And then the eagle lets go.
And almost always the tortoise plunges to its death. Everyone knows why the
tortoise does this. Gravity is a habit that is hard to shake off. No one knows
why the eagle does this. There's good eating on a tortoise but, considering the
effort involved, there's much better eating on practically anything else. It's
simply the delight of eagles to torment tortoises.
But of course, what the eagle does not realize is that it is participating in a
very crude form of natural selection.
One day a tortoise will learn how to fly.
]
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>They have every natural power and right to teach stuff
>that is wrong.
Not in public schools.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>If my choice in the US is between the "christian right," and statists
>on the left (religion of The State), then I choose the christian
>right, even though I have no belief in the supernatural.
>
>The issue is control: statists essentially want to control others and
>use them. (Treat them as chattel.) Statists are evil.
It's the "christian right" that demands control.
Who are these "Statists"?
The feds had the largest growth in history under the repubs
& the "christian right".
And there's no free money either.
--
Cliff
Paul G.
> Donald Munro wrote:
> >> Anyway Ms Palin will tell you to ban all that stuff and forcefeed
> >> creationism as "science".
>
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > Here's my rant:
>
> > Really? Who cares? It is arguing about polishing the kitchen table while
> > the building is burning. But what about xerObama (zero experience, and
> > just "present," otherwise a carbon copy of every statist ass to come down
> > the pike the last 80 years) who wants to establish The State as Religion,
> > but just won't be up front about it. He wants to get the kids into STATE
> > run schools where he can brainwash them (the euphemistic phrase is "to
> > socialize").
>
> Religions have been brainwashing people for the last 1000+ years and
> seem to be much more effective at it than any state.
> Teaching science at school whether it be physics, mathematics or biology
> isn't brainwashing. If the science teacher is any good the pupils should
> end up more sceptical and less likely to believe everything they're told.
>
SLAVE boy comes from the Madrassa school of thought on education. Gee,
all those evil science teachers telling kids the earth is a sphere
when the bible clearly says it's flat, and the science teacher is
contradicted by the map of the world hanging on the wall in the
science class!
-Paul
SLAVE of THE STATE
> Religions have been brainwashing people for the last 1000+ years and
> seem to be much more effective at it than any state.
Sure, but in the USA, religions have had a nutsack shaving straight
from the get-go. They ain't that powerful. If they were, I'd have
ranted about that instead.
One has to pick one's battles. Helmet laws and dollar bills saying
"in god we trust" aren't at the top of my list.
> Teaching science at school whether it be physics, mathematics or biology
> isn't brainwashing. If the science teacher is any good the pupils should
> end up more sceptical and less likely to believe everything they're told.
None of those subjects precludes religious beliefs. And if it is
about flaws regarding "origins of the universe," I'll say a wrong view
just doesn't matter in day to day life, anymore than believing in the
easter bunny does.
State education teaches weirdo "social values" and brainwashes
students into we-meme framing. I hate that crap, mostly because it is
a warped view of reality. I am not, at all, saying it is intentional
or a conspiracy. Actually that is a facet that makes it dangerous.
> > A parent is the first and natural trustee of their "incompetent"
> > offspring. They have every natural power and right to teach stuff that is
> > wrong. You and I don't get to have a say. Why do people fear and hate
> > freedom? Because they can't control others if freedom exists, that is
> > why.
>
> The morality of brainwashing children with religion by parents or
> "statism" by states adopting children as in 1984 are equally questionable.
Yes, they certainly are questionable. They are not, however, anything
like equally questionable. A parent does not have the long arm of
power (influence) that the state does. Again, I would be talking a
different talk if I felt religion was being imposed by force in a
substantial way, as I pick my battles.
> What "natural" right does anyone have to control someone elses thinking ?
None, in my mind. But mutual influence is inevitable -- it is part of
life, and part of the nature of a communicative (social) animal. I
guarantee you that every thinking individual on this planet carries
with them some wrong ideas, even atheists, and even me (lol). I claim
that families are of a natural order, and control by the state is
not. This influence inside families is a natural order and
furthermore it is starkly limited in what damage it could do if the
influences are wrong, as the power of a family is profoundly weak
compared to The State. I guarantee you I do not like what many
parents do, and I see no merit whatsoever in creationism. Sometimes
another value is more important in the world of tradeoffs. For me,
that value is freedom. I believe people must be free to learn their
own lessons, and make their own successes and failures. (For example,
spending time on rbr.)
Freedom means someone is /allowed/ to fail as much as suceed. It
doesn't mean the good samaritan will not offer a hand out, when the
fallen is ready to be helped, including a new brand of influence.
SLAVE of THE STATE
>
> > On Sep 4, 12:43 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > However, I also recognize that in some sense
> > > it's unsustainable, in terms of water and power,
> > > to have 6.3 million people living in Arizona
> > > and more every day.
>
> > Sure, it is unsustainable the same way the New York City does not have
> > the "internal natural resources" to exist (on its own). Which means
> > your comment is at best vague, and worse is meaningless.
>
> No, that means New York City is not self-sufficient, not that
> it's unsustainable. I'm not talking about whether or not you
> grow your vegetables in your backyard, but for example,
> whether you are getting your water by pumping down an
> aquifer that will eventually recede below the reach of your
> pumps, or relying on snowmelt during a long term trend
> of diminishing rainfall.
>
> Yes, of course, if you have enough money, you can
> buy and import water from someplace else, but at some
> point the cost of the lifestyle to which people are accustoming
> themselves will become much higher than they had planned.
But so what? People that can't afford it will move out. Then demand
(and price) will go down, and a new equilibrium found. There isn't a
magic number of residents to call out a claim of "sustainability."
Yes -- one of the things I hate: distorted incentives.
If you make "poor decision making" less expensive, you'll get more of
it.
> People don't tot up the actual cost of living in Berkeley
> vs. Asspimple, WI and compare, because many costs
> are hidden and some are probably very difficult to
> calculate (What's the chance that a devastating
> earthquake or fire will take out your house before
> you move? Anywhere from 1-25% ? How do you
> account rationally for unlikely but devastating events
> if you aren't an insurance company?)
Sure -- I agree. That is one angle of exactly why I don't make these
kinds of claims. I don't.