The editorial built up to this penultimate paragraph:
While our attention must now be on the Gulf Coast's most immediate needs, the nation will soon ask why New Orleans's levees remained so inadequate. Publications from the local newspaper to National Geographic have fulminated about the bad state of flood protection in this beloved city, which is below sea level. Why were developers permitted to destroy wetlands and barrier islands that could have held back the hurricane's surge? Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?
Good question. Maybe because Congress listened to the NY Times editorial board in April of 2005:
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... [snip]
This is a bad piece of legislation.
Lesson: Don't listen to the NY Times editorial board. (via Don Luskin)
http://media.nationalreview.com/
Are ya watching Gretta's show now??
Thank You Gretta for the uplifting stories about the refugees and not the doom and gloom stories like others in the media
They just interviews one women that is staying at a shelter ... she said that when they were in NO they didn't know if anyone cared about them and now she knows there are a whole lot of good people that care about them and how grateful she is for all this help