Watching the news this morning I read that Bush said no-one could have predicted that the levees that kept New Orleans from being swallowed whole by the Gulf of Mexico would be breached. This statement strikes me as either 1) incredibly ignorant or as 2) a vile case of political spin. Even I know that those levees would only withstand a Hurricane of class 3 or less (and I live thousands of miles away from hurricane country) from watching CNN for thirty minutes during the last big hurricane a couple months ago.
"A former official in the Clinton administration, Sydney Blumenthal, has written in Der Spiegel: "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 US, 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."
"It remains to be seen whether any extra funding would have made any difference. For example, would the money have come through in time and would it have been spent on those places which gave way? "-Paul Reynolds, BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4204304.stmBush's priorities and policies have now proven disastrous at home as well as abroad. I just want to slap all the flag-humping Bushies and their red-white-and-blue bumper stickers back into last November.
So really we have 2 contributing factors the Katrina disaster in New Orleans. The first being the fact that the plug was pulled on the levee construction funding, and the second being a layer deeper, which is the underlying cause of the worsening storms that keep battering this region more and more each year - Global Warming, which is a plain result of our dependence, globally, on noxious-fume producing modes of transportation.
Climatologists all say the same thing (same article as above):
"Last year the National Geographic magazine wrote about a disaster simulation which predicted that 50,000 people might die in the city in a Category Five Hurricane, which Katrina was for a time."
"The chances of such a storm hitting New Orleans in any given year are slight, but the danger is growing," the article said. "Climatologists predict that powerful storms may occur more frequently this century, while rising sea level from global warming is putting low-lying coasts at greater risk."Meanwhile, there were two simultaneous reports about global warming that just came out. The BBC says,
"New readings from the European satellite Envisat suggest that this year's southern hemisphere ozone hole may be one of the largest on record." -Richard Black, BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4197566.stmBut the very next day CNN reported findings from US scientists that said that the Ozone layer has stopped shrinking and that ozone levels are improving:
"Study: Ozone layer has stopped shrinking" -Reuters via CNN.
I argued earlier this year with a Libertarian (read: more right-leaning and gun-waving than your average cow-eating/club-toting/cro-magnon Republican) who was trying to tell me that global warming was a "liberal conspiracy" (some back-story for color: this is also the same person who gave me poison oak and then had the nerve to tell me it was "psycho-somatic"). Which resulted in a knock-down, drag out fight in our office during which each of us came up with roughly the same kinds articles about the problem as cited above; his article said the ozone layer has become thicker or at least stabilized over most of the planet, my article pointing out that the hole over Antarctica has gotten bigger.
I might agree with him insofar as psychosomatic diseases are concerned, that this phenomenon that we are experiencing is indeed mind-over-matter. Is it denial, a mass self-hypnosis that tells us we can keep going on in the same way? Is it a convenient case of selective attention? Really it boils down to this: are we too moronic to be able to pick thru this nonsense and figure out what's really going on? Or do we have to be hit over the head with obviously changing weather patterns (i.e. el Nino) and full blown disasters like New Orleans to connect the dots and figure it out and demand that our legislators take these issues head-on on the massive scale that befits an unfolding tragedy of this scale? (and if you think I'm just talking about New Orleans you need to stop and really think about it)... There's only so much that small pockets of liberals foaming at the mouth for alternate energy can do; this does nothing to change how people live in middle America, or the kinds of cars that manufacturers are allowed to put on the market. It's too late for a grassroots movement. We need to move fast and work from the top-down to patch this hole up.
So in the face of all the mounting scientific evidence about that obscure libaral conspiracy known as "Global Warming", what was one of the first things that Bush did way back in the first month of his presidency? He walked away from the Kyoto treaty that Clinton and other more remotely responsible world leaders had worked so hard to hammer out that would have gradually weaned the participating nations off of polluting, greenhouse gas-emitting energy sources. Actually I should correct that statement, because he didnt just walk away; that statement implies that he might have shown up in the first place. No, that's not what happened. Instead, Bush just ignored the summit entirely; he snubbed them like the snarky-toothed social climbing southern belle that he is.
So don't look at me - you know who to come crying to next time your house is under water.