NYT: Death of an American City

[Kupek]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/opini ... n1.html?hp

[Nev]

I don't even know what to think about all of it.

Tempting as it is to blame the federal government, I'm not sure that's all of it - though, had we been running a surplus and not pumping shitloads of money into a foreign land that partially doesn't want us over there, we might have the resources to do a major reconstruction effort.

However, part of the problem, I think, is that the city just managed to grow up in a very risky location anyway. It grew up there by chance, but at this point, now that we are really and truly cognizant of the risks of having a major city that requires a massive levee system to have a degree of safety...well, I don't blame investors for being somewhat wary of it.

The thing is, that does nothing to prevent the loss of the culture, vibrancy, and memories - personal and national - that took place there.

Goddamn shame. Maybe I'll blame Bush and his amoeba-like compatriots anyway.

Actually, I think that does a disservice to the amoebae.

[Julius Seeker]

Well, these guys helped put Bush into power. Not everyone there, but most of them, don't you love it when democracy bites you in the ass? The way democracy is done nowadays serves only those with a voice, and the voices are always those of the wealthy class. The poorer people really have no more voice or choice than they would in any totalitarian society. Why should the wealthy class care about New Orleans? Perhaps the welathy might decide it is important enough to use your tax dollars to fix the city and score some points at the same time as using your tax dollars to fight wars so they can take over oil fields.

When democracy votes in a government that is not due to exploitation of peoples belief systems, then I will change my opinion. Yet, it has never happen, and I doubt it will ever happen. You don't have to listen to me, this is only just my humble opinion =)

[Nev]

My friends and I have talked about this. The problem is that democracy without a generally educated populace, we've agreed, is a rather dangerous kind of government.

It's much better at making sure that "factions" (the old-time name for groups that promote their minority interests over the interests of the population as a whole...we usually call them "special interests" these days) don't overrun things than other forms of government. However, my friend Dave, who can be an absolutely elitist ass sometimes, still has a very good point that many Americans who have the right to vote are absolutely incompetent about reading or understanding the issues involved in voting.

I still think meritocratic systems have the potential to be far worse than democracies, if only because I really believe that eventually some sort of special interest usually gets into power, and without democratic ways to remove said special interest from power, that are intrinsically built into the system, one's options tend to be either revolution or nothing at all. However, I definitely don't think this implies that I think many of the people who can vote in this country actually take the time to understand what they're voting on.

To me, it's a serious problem. I would very much like to see introductory political science and theory taught at a high school level in this country. Some high schools do, but I don't think it's part of the federally mandated curriculum, and I think that would help things a lot.

[Julius Seeker]

Perhaps Democracy to an extent should be available. To remove people from power, but never to bring them in. Perhaps if a leader is obviously bad, then he can be voted out, and not be allowed to return.

That said, I do think that Democratically elected representation should exist, but they should not have any real power; they are there purely to express the opinions of the people, and not to lead, or spread their own opinion on anything else (as democratically elected leaders all seem to do today).

I do think that a lot of fear that people have in an non-democratic system is unwaranted though. The people who should select governments should not be confined to belief systems, they should focus purely on the merit of a person. The issue here is discovering how to find those who are not limited to belief systems; or that beliefs do not effect their decision making process. Beliefs blind people to true merit. Perhaps there could be an established set of criteria, and that the representatives elected can be those who determine who should be able to vote and who can't based on that criteria.

We have a legal system for example, that supposedly requires an unbiased approach before considering the extent of how the established laws should be applied to offenders. I have faith in humanity, just not most of humanity =)

Anyways, I do think that Democracy in itself is probably too simple, we have seen it exploited heavily this century. This century of democracy has proved to hold the most war and most suffering of any century that history has recoreded in 1500 years (Back when nearly the entire civilized world was overun with war, starvation, and destruction). We also do not want to go back to the old systems we had though, but we need a new one.

[Ishamael]

Interesting editorial and it'll be interesting to see how this will play out. I can aready sense that we're starting to forget about Katrina by and large. Hopefully the local government will get their shit in gear because New Orleans is probably too poor to make things happen right away via Congress (with whom you need money to exert real leverage ).

[Nev]

Interesting editorial and it'll be interesting to see how this will play out. I can aready sense that we're starting to forget about Katrina by and large. Hopefully the local government will get their shit in gear because New Orleans is probably too poor to make things happen right away via Congress (with whom you need money to exert real leverage ).

I haven't forgotten personally, though you may be right at a national level. I am getting the fuck out of L.A. as soon as I can. We are just about as bright in terms of city placement as New Orleans - "Hey, look, there is a fault line here. Will this be a detriment to building an alpha-level world city? I say no."

Regarding New Orleans and money, though, one would think that the massive supertanker port that used to be there would have provided a certain amount of impetus to get local infrastructure going again, if nothing else. I don't really know what other port options are available in the Gulf of Mexico, but that's got to be a non-trivial region for sea trade...

[SineSwiper]

While I hope that the culture of NO doesn't fade, I think the city should not be where it is. The very idea of a city like that existing is like the Tower of Babylon falling over and over again. Geologically speaking, it's a fucking death trap waiting to happen.

IT'S BELOW SEA LEVEL, SHAPED LIKE A BOWL, AND RIGHT NEXT TO THE FUCKING SEA!!!

Hell, the first year the city was built, it flooded. Since then, it's completely flooded several times before. The fact that it still existed (well, a few months ago, anyway) means that it will exist again. This would be the perfect opportunity to move the city elsewhere, but I doubt anybody will bother. Instead, it will be rebuilt, levies will be updated, and it will flood in another 50 years. Such is the behavior of humans.