reaction to natural disasters

Posted by: wfaulk

reaction to natural disasters - 01/09/2008 00:29

My wife is mad at me because I'm not totally obsessed with Gustav. We have had this argument before. So I'm curious as to who's more wrong.

Posted by: Dignan

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 01/09/2008 01:12

You're not wrong, it's just something you find interesting. Personally, I voted for the first option.
Posted by: LittleBlueThing

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 01/09/2008 07:08

Who?
Posted by: LittleBlueThing

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 01/09/2008 07:13

Ah, shit, the hurricane. I assumed it was a celebrity thing.
Err, I guess 0-20%, emphasis on the 1.

I don't watch the newstertainment channels - I read about the hurricane once last week sometime on the BBC (probably when my wife mentioned it was stronger than Katrina).

There was an interesting article in the New Scientist last week that promoted filling your ears with wax as a way of filtering out irrelevant information - works for me:)
Posted by: Schido

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 01/09/2008 08:03

Hurricane Bound For Texas Slowed By Large Land Mass To The South
Posted by: frog51

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 01/09/2008 10:18

First I had heard of it as well - so do they reckon this one will be as bad?
Posted by: CrackersMcCheese

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 01/09/2008 11:22

As terrible as this sounds, I'm too busy to pay attention to it. While I have every sympathy for what is happening, me 'dealing' with it or obsessing won't make one blind bit of difference. I glance at the BBC News website once or twice a day or I know about it - thats about it.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 01/09/2008 12:27

Originally Posted By: Dignan
You're not wrong, it's just something you find interesting.

I think you read it backwards. It's the wife that's obsessed, and she's mad at me for being "unfeeling" about it.
Posted by: lectric

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 01/09/2008 12:45

I, of course, am the one at 100%. I just got off the roof of my building when I took the camera crew up there. The rain feels like you're getting pelted with BB's. It looks like we dodged it though. The west bank (South of New Orleans - Don't ask) may have some tidal surge flooding, But the east bank (N.O proper and me as well) seem fairly protected, at least frfom the worst of it.
Posted by: petteri

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 01/09/2008 12:54

Seems like good news for N.O. then! I wonder what is happening further down the coast? Stay safe!
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 01/09/2008 13:07

Yeah, obviously you'd be at 100%. I guess I should assure you that I feel for you and that this sucks, but no one is benefiting from having someone a thousand miles away watch the news constantly.
Posted by: Robotic

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 01/09/2008 15:38

Originally Posted By: LittleBlueThing
Who?

My reaction, as well.

We should start naming earthquakes. Maybe the rest of the world would take California seriously then.
Posted by: peter

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 01/09/2008 18:53

Originally Posted By: wfaulk
no one is benefiting from having someone a thousand miles away watch the news constantly.

Perhaps indirectly they are. I'm sure that the improved attitude to disaster recovery from the authorities this time, plus the improved attitude to levee maintenance in recent years, is at least partly due to the fire that got lit under the people in question due to every viewer of CNN -- not just the New Orleaneans on the ground -- being able to see quite how badly they dropped the ball.

Peter
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 01/09/2008 23:46

It doesn't take 100% of my time in order to come to that conclusion. Really, a couple of newspaper articles is all that was needed.

Then again, the American populace does seem to need to be hit over the head with things.
Posted by: Dignan

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 02/09/2008 00:20

Originally Posted By: wfaulk
Originally Posted By: Dignan
You're not wrong, it's just something you find interesting.

I think you read it backwards. It's the wife that's obsessed, and she's mad at me for being "unfeeling" about it.

D'oh, I was reading a little quickly on my way out the door. Missed the "not" in your first sentence.
Posted by: CrackersMcCheese

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 02/09/2008 17:39

It amazes me that people still live there. Obviously there are individuals that simply don't have the means to move or who have lived there all their 80 years but seriously, c'mon, would anyone actually choose to live there if they had the choice? And if so, why?
Posted by: julf

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 03/09/2008 05:07

Originally Posted By: Phil.
It amazes me that people still live there.


Just because it's below sea level? I (and quite a few million
Dutch people) can assure you that that doesn't need to be
an issue. There just needs to be the will (and the money) to
manage the water.
Posted by: CrackersMcCheese

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 03/09/2008 06:21

Well there's the sea level thing. But also... I dunno... it just seems like it's not a very nice place to be. Marshy, wet, lots of poverty. This is the impression I get of it everytime I see it. Plus add the constant threat of being blown away every couple of years.
Posted by: Schido

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 03/09/2008 07:46

Originally Posted By: Phil.
It amazes me that people still live there.


Me too, but it would get so crowdy in the rest of the world if all americans would move out. laugh
Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 03/09/2008 23:05

Originally Posted By: Phil.
Well there's the sea level thing. But also... I dunno... it just seems like it's not a very nice place to be. Marshy, wet, lots of poverty. This is the impression I get of it everytime I see it. Plus add the constant threat of being blown away every couple of years.


P. J. O'Rourke called it a "high crime drainage ditch." Sums it up perfectly from my brief time there.
Posted by: lectric

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 06/09/2008 16:07

Originally Posted By: Phil.
It amazes me that people still live there. Obviously there are individuals that simply don't have the means to move or who have lived there all their 80 years but seriously, c'mon, would anyone actually choose to live there if they had the choice? And if so, why?


Well here's the deal. This is my favorite part of the country. Bar none. I can't imagine living anywhere else. The old saying is after living here, N.O is like OZ, everywhere else is like Kansas. We have the best food in the world, IMHO, great entertainment, access to beaches, casinos, night life, etc. I love the water too much to be landlocked anywhere. This is also one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the US. We took the best from many different cultures and made our own.

As far as the hurricanes go, every part of the country has it's own natural disasters. Northeast, you get ice storms, snowed in, and even the occasional hurricane. North is just too frickin cold. Middle gets tornadoes, dust storms, etc. SW is too frickin hot. West coast gets earthquakes, mudslides, droughts, etc. Hawaii gets hurricanes AND tsunamis. Alasaka, see North, above.

Of all these things, at least we get a 3-5 day warning to get the hell out of the way of a hurricane, and prepare our houses for the impact. Try getting out of the way of an earthquake, tornado, or mudslide.

As someone stated earlier, living below sea level is not really a problem. Our problem in Katrina was a purely man-made one. We survived the hurricane itself with VERY little damage, it wasn't until the levee's broke that there was an issue. Not to mention it took the federal government DAYS to get any type of relief here. Not long after, when the tsunami hit Thailand, we had relief on the ground halfway across the globe in less than 24 hours. Something went horribly, horribly wrong in the federal response to a disaster on it's own soil. That wasn't a location problem, it was a bureaucratic problem.

On a more personal note, my wife's family lives here. My family is 2.5 hours away. My wife (Danna) has been working here at city hall for 23 years. 2 more and she could retire with 75%. 7 more and she gets 100%. I've been working here for 8 years. 2 more and I'm vested (30% retirement at 65 no matter what) +3 more percent every year after, until 25 years. I have no plans of giving up our retirement.

As to the crime problem, that is an issue in EVERY major city. Don't think New Orleans is worse than DC or New York for even a second. Personally, Unless you do something stupid, like park your car next to the projects in a poorly lit area at 2 AM, you will never have a problem with crime here. I rarely even lock my car at night and have often (unintentionally) left the house unlocked while at work. Granted, there are certain areas that you just shouldn't go to, but this is the same as Chicago, LA, New York, DC, Atlanta, or any other large metropolitan area. The vast majority of this crime can be traced directly to the welfare problem and to gang issues, but that's a discussion for another day. I'm too tired right now.

Anyway, an occasional hurricane isn't typically life threatening. It's just inconvenient.

So no, I don't think I'm crazy or stupid, and I'm not leaving my home. Ever.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 06/09/2008 17:19

Hear, hear!

That said, the murder rate is quite high. Ironically, the (other) violent crime and property crime rates are quite low.

US cities by crime rate
Posted by: lectric

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 07/09/2008 03:50

Yeah, that IS rather strange. I will say the vast majority of murders here are gang related. New Orleans does have a rather unique dichotomy of people. There is a lot of old money, side by side with a lot of poverty. It's a sad thing, but again, most of the poorer people here choose welfare over work.

To point out a few of my issues with the welfare system, think about it this way. Say a couple on welfare has a baby. They get let's say $600 a month in support from the government. Now they have a second baby. Instead of $600 they get $500 a month for the second baby. The rational is that some costs are shared. No need to buy a new crib when the old one will do. Third child gets $400.

Now, if a single mother has a child, she gets $600 a month. If she has a second child WITH A DIFFERENT FATHER, she gets another $600 a month. See, now it's considered 2 different family units. What this is doing is promoting a total breakdown of family. We are actually rewarding people NOT to try and make a cohesive family. Imagine having 4-5 siblings all with different fathers. What kind of structure could you possibly have in life? This isn't to say that they don't have a chance, but it DOES make it much harder to excel.

Years ago I dated a girl who worked at a low-income school. Basically it was a special needs school for the underprivileged. She had one girl who was particularly bright. She came crying to me that night because the mother had fought to have her child labeled as having a learning disability. See, you get more money per month from the government if you have a special needs child. This woman was trading away her child's education for a little extra money a month for herself. Disgusting.

The unfortunate thing for New Orleans is that these are the types of people that always seem to make on the national media. Did you ever see a single picture of anyone in New Orleans post-katrina wearing a suit or working to rebuild an office building? I didn't, although that's precisely the environment I was working in. All the national media covered was the poverty-stricken masses at the superdome or the crack-addict looters. I guess it's the same kind of phenomena that makes tornadoes always hit trailer parks. They don't, of course, but it makes the most sensational news.
Posted by: msaeger

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 07/09/2008 20:46

When we were there a couple years ago we stayed in the French Quarter but we poked around in the suburban type areas a little. I saw quite a few houses that were damaged and looked like they were abandoned and never being repaired.

Did quite few people flee never to return or is it taking that long to fix them ?

After our short visit would have to agree it would be a nice place to live aside from the hurricane thing. All Minnesota gets is hail and tornadoes which are minuscule by comparison.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 07/09/2008 21:12

Originally Posted By: msaeger
Did quite few people flee never to return or is it taking that long to fix them ?

I know you were asking lectric, and he probably knows better than I do, but, what can I tell you? I feel like butting in.

I'm sure that there are many people who don't plan to return, but I think the bigger problem is a huge labor shortage. When you have to rebuild every home in several square miles, many of them that you have to just tear down and start over either due to physical damage or due to mold problems that simply cannot be abated using less invasive methods, you're talking about many years of work. Add onto that that a labor shortage of that magnitude is going to increase the cost of labor a lot, and the fact that many of these homes were in less wealthy neighborhoods, you have a situation where it takes a very long time for those willing and able to spend to rebuild, and a lot of people who will wait until labor costs reduce.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 07/09/2008 21:20

Originally Posted By: msaeger
it would be a nice place to live aside from the hurricane thing

As lectric said, though, hurricanes themselves aren't that bad. If you live on highland, they're merely very bad storms. All you really have to contend with is a large amount of rain, lightning, and high winds. This can lead to things like trees falling over, which sucks, but far worse things have happened. The thing that devastated New Orleans was the flooding. And the midwest gets severe flooding, too, if this June was any indication.
Posted by: lectric

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 07/09/2008 23:13

Bitt is absolutely correct on both counts. Some are not returning. Some don't have the money. Like I have said before, I lost close to $40k due to being bent over by the insurance companies. I am, however, in a position to be able to take that kind of hit and it's all good. Many people don't make enough to do that. They are having to save up in order to get repairs made. Other houses have been snapped up by real estate companies, and they aren't in as much of a hurry to rebuild as someone who had to live in a trailer in their front yard. Others are just lazy slobs that don't care. Most likely not in the quarter though. Those were bought up pretty fast. Some were bought back by the government. You can imagine how long it will take THOSE to be rebuilt. Some are awaiting demolition. Some are waiting for the neighborhoods to start coming back before they invest good money in a neighborhood that might get razed. Some are STILL waiting on insurance proceeds to continue working on their home (think lawsuit.)

All that being said, things are actually going pretty well. Home depot is back to normal, instead of being more popular than the mall. Macy's is not only reopening in the Esplanade Mall, but they built a brand new store at Clearview Mall. Both will open next month. The really odd thing is that even though we suffered all this damage, and the rest of the country is starting to slide into a recession, we are still have an economic boom. If I had any complaint, it would be that there are entirely too many mexican restaurants opening up. This is, of course, due to the illegal migrant workforce that has moved in.

But things are getting back to normal. Better, actually, if you ask me.
Posted by: Roger

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 08/09/2008 05:54

Originally Posted By: lectric
Some are awaiting demolition.


Sounds like ideal training potential for the Louisiana National Guard smile
Posted by: lectric

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 08/09/2008 13:20

Hehe. I wish.

Actually, here's a funny but sad story.

About a month ago, a couple bought a house in the quarter and were starting to renovate and repair it. In Friday, they got their permits and started working. On Sunday, the city tore the house down. See the city is in the process of tearing down dilapidated houses to get the lots ready for new construction. They sort of forgot to take this particular house off the demo list. Oops.
Posted by: Robotic

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 08/09/2008 14:08

Crap!
They should've had a big sign out front or something.
Posted by: lectric

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 08/09/2008 14:11

In retrospect, yeah. I assume the city is now building them a house.
Posted by: Robotic

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 08/09/2008 14:15

I should hope so! I hope it turns into a good deal for them.

What a story! And they weren't even there to be able to lay themselves down in front of the bulldozer ala Aurthur Dent.
Posted by: julf

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 08/09/2008 16:40

Fortunately that only happens to cars in the UK
Posted by: lectric

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 08/09/2008 20:39

Dude. That is almost worse. A house can be rebuilt. A classic car cannot.

Finally found the link. And apparently it was a Saturday, not a Sunday
Posted by: julf

Re: reaction to natural disasters - 09/09/2008 06:01

Wouldn't expect contractors to the city to work Sundays smile