Replies

The Usual Hypocrisy: Frauds, Fools, Demagogues of the Left

(my rant, followed by an excellent blogger's review of NY Times editorials related to funding the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control)

As the media and the Demagogic Party launch into new frenzies of demagogic outrage, it is more than a bit significant to wonder where all these apostles of flood control and new levees for New Orleans have been all these years. More than a century has passed since the great Galveston hurricane of 1900 showed what was in store for New Orleans whenever a Cat. 4/5 hurricane might make a direct hit on the city. The political leadership of Lousiana has been nearly 100% Democratic since the late 19th century, and in all that time they did not see fit to pay for levees and flood control adequate to the present challenges. The US Congress was almost continuously dominated by the Democrats in the 1950s-60s-70s-80s and early '90s, yet they never saw fit to appropriate billions of dollars to "save New Orleans." Bill Clinton was President for 8 years, along with his brilliant co-President Hillary and his pseudo-President Algore, and they never saw fit to lead a campaign for the funds to protect New Orleans. In fact, we now know that the Clinton administration brushed aside appeals for much better flood control around New Orleans.

Now it turns out that the record of the NY Times, at least in the past dozen years, is to consistently denounce funding the Army Corps of Engineers for flood-control projects in the lower Mississippi as wasteful boondoggles -- the Times editorial board actually pontificated that seeing the Mississippi flooding out of control....

"is to witness one of the inarguable boundaries to human existence. The river lends out its flood plain wordlessly and takes it back without argument."

MY, OH MY, the NY Times thinks that flood waters coursing through a flood plain is somehow poetic and just, the proper functioning of Mother Nature. Yes, the brilliant sages at the NY Times never could see the value in pouring large sums of public money into flood control projects on the Mississippi.

One might well agree with the "economic sense" of their argument, which is made by such noted conservative economists as Thomas Sowell (amazing, the NY Times agreeing with a conservative) that massive public subsidy of development in dangerous flood plains (which the Mississippi delta location of New Orleans most certainly is!!!) distorts rational decision-making about risk and benefit.

That's one reason some might question whether New Orleans ought to be re-built at all in its current location, at least with massive public funding....

But of course pompous liberal-leftists of the MSM and Demagogic Party will never admit that they have NEVER, EVER supported never mind funded a proposal that would have given N.O. a fighting chance to survive this particular hurricane.... they will simply rail against Bush as Demagogues love to do.

------------------------------------------------

MSM: In Their Own Words, A Continuing Series

http://eurota.blogspot.com/2005/09/msm-in-their-own-words-continuing.html

Given the hysteria enveloping the editorial pages of the NYT due to hurricane Katrina, what have they had to say on natural disasters in the past, via Lexis-Nexis:

Remember the 1993 floods in the midwest, the NYT editorialized on 14 July 1993:

[NY Times editorial]:

"For the longer term, Washington and flood-prone areas must reconsider the pro's and con's of flood control projects and flood insurance."

The billions of Federal dollars spent to construct dams and levees have doubtless prevented billions of dollars of damage to the areas they serve. But a dam or a levee in one place creates problems somewhere else. Also, by offering protection, they encourage people to live and work and develop farming in flood plains that are inherently risky.

Budget constraints and environmental concerns have slowed new flood control projects in recent years. Congress should resist pressure to spend more now because of this year's floods; these projects need closer evaluation than they've gotten in the past.

Likewise flood insurance. Less than 20 percent of those eligible for federally subsidized flood insurance buy it -- because they can't afford it, or think they're not at risk, or figure aid will be forthcoming anyhow if disaster strikes. Before the rivers rose this year, there was a move in Congress to expand flood insurance coverage, either by regulation or incentives, rather than have taxpayers at large foot the bill through direct aid. But flood insurance can encourage reckless development.

Flood plains are risky territory, as the Mississippi and its tributaries are proving again. Federal policy needs to control the risk, not just the rivers.

The 1997 Floods in North Dakota, 24 April 1997:

[NY Times editorial]:

There will be time in the months ahead to assess whether something more might have been done to make the flood predictions more accurate so that official planning could have fashioned more effective defenses.

On making flood control projects more complicated and costly, praise on 9 May 1997:

[NY Times editorial]:

In the last session of Congress, a small band of Republican moderates organized by Representative Sherwood Boehlert of New York succeeded in blocking nearly every attempt by their right-wing colleagues to gut the country's basic environmental statutes.

Fortunately, Mr. Boehlert and his friends are still wide awake. On Wednesday, in the first major environmental battle of the new Congress, the moderates and like-minded Democrats beat back a bill that would have permanently exempted any flood control project from the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

While now currently in love with the Army Corps of Engineers, how did the NYT editorialize the Corps techniques in the past, 28 April 2001:

[NY Times editorial]:

The famous Wilkes-Barre flood of 1972 and the Mississippi River flood of 1993 led to fierce criticism of the Army Corps of Engineers, whose traditional methods of flood control were found to have made matters much worse than they might have been. But the Corps has never abandoned its blind faith in dams and levees that, when overused, constrict the river's natural flow, invite overbuilding and end up doing more harm than good.

And back where we started with midwestern floods, this time in 2001, 25 April 2001:

[NY Times editorial]:

No one welcomes a flood. No one wants to do away with flood prevention. But it is no surrender to recognize, as many Midwesterners have done, that there is something profoundly elemental in the spring rising of the Mississippi and its tributaries, an adherence to a law that is still greater than almost anything the Army Corps of Engineers can throw in its way. The Mississippi is powerful enough on an ordinary summer's day. But to see it in spring, overflowing into Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois, is to witness one of the inarguable boundaries to human existence. The river lends out its flood plain wordlessly and takes it back without argument.

Is there something profoundly elemental in the summer/fall rising of hurricanes as well?

I will leave you with this NYT editorial on 24 June 2003:

[NY Times editorial]:

The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has a rare opportunity tomorrow to strike a blow for both fiscal sanity and the environment. Before the committee is a bill that would bring a measure of discipline and independent oversight to the Army Corps of Engineers, an incorrigibly spendthrift agency whose projects over the years have caused enormous damage to the nation's streams, rivers and wetlands.

And this one from 13 April 2005:

[NY Times editorial]:

Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health of America's rivers and wetlands should pay attention to a bill now before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would shovel $17 billion at the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and other water-related projects -- this at a time when President Bush is asking for major cuts in Medicaid and other important domestic programs. Among these projects is a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River that has twice flunked inspection by the National Academy of Sciences.

The Government Accountability Office and other watchdogs accuse the corps of routinely inflating the economic benefits of its projects. And environmentalists blame it for turning free-flowing rivers into lifeless canals and destroying millions of acres of wetlands -- usually in the name of flood control and navigation but mostly to satisfy Congress's appetite for pork.

This is a bad piece of legislation.

-------------------------------------------------

Things to remember while the NYT histrionically bleats the opposite now.

Oh WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Many thanks for the ping.

Great post, Enchante!

Hope you don't mind me pinging JimRob.

LOL.........that is just SUCH a great find! Too dang funny!

Deserves a thread of its own.

Here is the "killer graphic"--

...and here's what I have so far:

HURRICANE KATRINA- archive of links

Nice compilation of quotes from NYT.

I watched a program on PBS last night, (amazing how fast they put it together!) on the disappearing delta of the Mississippi and how that marshland is meant to be the natural barrier to protect LA from hurricane forces. With massive loads of money, a man-made system of "reverse levees" (my words) can direct some the annual flooding of the MS back onto the land to deposit the silt that now is sluicing straight to the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico.

However! At the end of the 20 min presentation, after all this talk of reverting to mother nature, they said that "the Bush Administration has cut the funding by 90% for reclaiming wetlands. The COE asked for $78 milion to Maintain the pumps of New Orleans - that were designed to handle rainwater, not river flood! - and the Bush admin cut this request by half. This admin and others before it did not do enough."

We must slap down the "Bush admin cut" every time we hear it. If the Bush admin gave half of a requested amount, then "the Bush admin Gave $39 million dollars to the city of New Orleans for pump improvements."

This was the first time I ever heard what the functional capability of the NO pumps were designed to be.

Ping to an important post in which you both might be interested.