[Flux Capacitor]

----When all is said and done, it will be Rita that has left the biggest scar on Louisiana.----

No, not even close. Rita did a great deal of destruction, of course, but Lake Charles was not dealt a death blow. There have only been two deaths reported at my last check, and the residents of the whole area will return, rebuild, and resume life. Callous as it may sound, as hurricanes go, Rita turned out to be pretty average.

Katrina, on the other hand, destroyed the largest city in the state and a huge chunk of Louisiana's economy with it. The loss of life was exponentially greater. There actually can be a recovery from Rita for this state; Katrina's effects are catastrophic and permanent.

We got very lucky with Rita.

-Dan

[laz]

but Lake Charles was not dealt a death blow

And this is part of the misleading impression the media has created. No, Lake Charles wasn't dealt a death blow -- but other places were. Was Lake Charles ground zero? No. Coastal towns like Cameron and Holly Beach were ground zero. Cities like Lake Charles and Beaumont were just outside ground zero.

[laz]

Katrina, on the other hand, destroyed the largest city in the state and a huge chunk of Louisiana's economy with it.

Really? Katrina didn't destroy NOLA. NOLA is still standing, while Cameron and Holly Beach are not. NOLA is the victim of a side effect of Katrina, not Katrina herself. If the levees had held, NOLA would be in as good a shape as Houston/Galveston. Before the flooding started, everyone was saying NOLA dodged a bullet, just as they're saying about Houston/Galveston. Seems you're falling into the media's trap, making NOLA the center of the universe. Katrina didn't destroy NOLA. She did, however, destroy the Mississippi coast. Remember that?