National Geographic
September 3, 2005 10:49 AM   Subscribe

Gone with the water - "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees" (October 2004)
posted by growabrain (19 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
That's already been posted quite a few times hasn't it?
posted by milovoo at 10:50 AM on September 3, 2005

... in threads, I mean, or are we converting all the individual news items from threads into FPPs now? (judging from the others as well)

(and perhaps there is a reason, I'm just asking)
posted by milovoo at 10:57 AM on September 3, 2005

Oh boy! If that is the case I got like twenty FPPs coming up!
posted by TwelveTwo at 11:02 AM on September 3, 2005

Dowd has a full opinon on that quote, rather than just a FPP (free reg, yada yada).
posted by about_time at 11:24 AM on September 3, 2005

If one does a search before making a fpp, does it search threads? Otherwise, how else are we to know what's been posted in the threads?
posted by Qubit at 11:40 AM on September 3, 2005

I did notice a lot of those 'precient' news articles about what could happen mentioned the levees overflowing, not actualy being destroyed, but the result was pretty much the same.
posted by delmoi at 11:57 AM on September 3, 2005

Dear Potential FPPosters,

Please, before posting in relation to the tragedy in New Orleans, make sure you are current with MetaFilter's discussion of the event. We have several 200+ threads in which a lot of links have been posted. If you'd like to join the discussion, please start there and only post on the front page if you have something exceptional. Given the enormity of this crisis, please consider the bar for "exceptional" to be set fairly high. (For example, I wouldn't mind an FPP about the letter from the governor requesting federal help (PDF) on the 28th, as many people here have been pointing the finger at her).

-VulcanMike and friends.
posted by VulcanMike at 12:28 PM on September 3, 2005

I am not very good at posting etc and often get yelled at for what I have in the past put up. I would though offer one thought: if you come across a post you disapprove of, move on. Why bother to make snotty comment since the post is already up...Save the bile.
posted by Postroad at 12:43 PM on September 3, 2005

Not sure if that comment is directed at me exclusively, but I was trying to be diplomatic. Some self-regulation in the Metafilter community, especially given the amount of discussion around this tragedy, can mean the difference between having to ignore one or two posts and 50 in your scenario.
posted by VulcanMike at 1:02 PM on September 3, 2005
posted by emphaticMisanthrop at 1:04 PM on September 3, 2005

Does that article actually talk about the levees failing or just being topped? In the lead up to the storm the prediction was that the storm surge would top the levees with devastating effect, but that didn't happen.

The initial effect of being topped is the same as the levee failing but the long term effect is different. If the levee is topped, the inflow of water stops as soon as the storm surge recedes. With no additional inflow you can begin removing the water. With a breached levee you can't effectively begin removing the water until the breech is sufficiently repaired so that more water doesn't flow in as fast as it is pumped out.

The Army Corps of Engineers inspected the levees in the buildup to the storm and were confident they would not fail though they expected them to be topped. Since, in the end they are different things and require different responses I'm not going to be quick to jump on the people saying failure was unexpected. From what I've read it was unexpected (though some did predict it).
posted by obfusciatrist at 1:14 PM on September 3, 2005

From emphaticMisanthrop's link:

"If you attempt to enter St. Bernard at a barricade – turn around and leave immediately. Anyone attempting to evade any barricades will be dealt with severely, including being shot on site."

posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:16 PM on September 3, 2005

Postroad you are absolutely right about this. I should not have posted my complaint directly like that, I should have used the flag system. That's why it's there, and I just forgot. It's still kind of new to me. Sorry. (If they can still be moderated out, I approve )
posted by milovoo at 2:35 PM on September 3, 2005

including being shot on site."

Where else would they shoot them? It would be an unquestionable breech of ethics to capture them, take them elsewhere, and then shoot them on another site.

At least they won't be shot on cite. "I will not allow a search of my bag, the fourth amendment prevents you . . . "
posted by obfusciatrist at 3:28 PM on September 3, 2005

There was supopsed to be a "bang" at the end of that ellipses.
posted by obfusciatrist at 3:29 PM on September 3, 2005

Where else would they shoot them? It would be an unquestionable breech of ethics to capture them, take them elsewhere, and then shoot them on another site.

Your getting to big for you're breaches.
+ "unconscionable"
posted by Aknaton at 4:32 PM on September 3, 2005

Oh fine. Just because I'm making fun of somebody else's typo this opens me up to similar ridicule. That hardly seems fair.

Though "unquestionable" is the word I meant to use.
posted by obfusciatrist at 5:27 PM on September 3, 2005


there ya go, obfy.
posted by mwhybark at 6:55 PM on September 3, 2005

This article deserves its own FPP - I read it earlier this summer - it worried me then. Reading it again now just makes me want to cry.

That said - the behaviour of some of the areas around New Orleans has been despicable. I saw a news report on one suburb (St Charles?) of large middle class houses with almost no damage except loss of water and electricity - no flooding. Residents had begun to return home. Their reponse to the tragedy happening just a little way away from them? To bring out guns and make signs threatening to shoot looters. They were people with cars, who could get supplies - they didn't even think to try to help the thousands of people just outside the city who are stranded. Only to shoot them, should they come near their nice, dry houses.
posted by jb at 7:22 PM on September 3, 2005

« Older liberals want creationism taught?   |   Flood myths Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments