thank you I needed that, still don't like news coverage!

let us be real honest , I never DISCOUNTED all the deaths anywhere. You were the one giving a count of AMERICANS lost. My thought is as long as the folks that report the FACTS overlook the people that hane nothing left of there homes-workplace,schools, churchs etc. we as a GOD loving nation need to take a look at ourself.

Aden, you asked why Katrina got more news coverage than Rita or Wilma. I answered that more people suffered, and more of them suffered needlessly due to governmental failures in both preparation and response. In support of my point, among many other facts I noted that more people perished due to Katrina than due to either of the other storms. You must have been tired when you responded, because your post came out kind of garbled, but I think your point was that people who are without an answer to their requests for help are at least as important as the number of people who perished. I certainly agree. But you fail to understand two vitally important points: 1) Media coverage and aid for victims are two seperate things. One is not dependant upon the other. 2) The victims of Rita and Wilma, and the victims of last year's hurricanes, are not without an answer to their requests for help. They are receiving the SAME aid that Katrina victims are receiving. Please tell me who it is that you think has been overlooked so I can try to understand you're point. Frankly, I think we're pretty lucky for the help that we're getting.

i know for fact that many people are still not getting help. i know for a fact that many people are not getting help becawse of where they live and the statas they hold in the county/town/area they live in . this is the nicees way i can say this. i've been in some of these areas, and was run out becawse i was trying to help.

Aden, I think it's wonderful that you gave your time and your effort to help people. G-d bless you. But I still don't understand **WHO** isn't getting help, and **WHAT** help do they need?

Building codes are stricter in Florida, so not as much property was damaged. ______________________________________________________ weren't most of the houses in NO old, pre building codes and remember, they apparently only build to a level 3 :) I just think Katrina was the largest event of the century. I saw on television the models that say NO will be an island many feet below sea level. The sea is reclaiming that area. So why are they rebuilding?

I don't think the question is "why" are they rebuilding, so much as "how" should they rebuild. New Orleans wasn't built below sea level - it sunk. The reason it sunk is because the levees prevented the Mississippi River from overflowing, which it did annually, depositing silt in it's path. Not only did the levees cause New Orleans to sink, but they starved the Louisiana wetlands of vital nutrients and led to their disappearance at an alarming rate. This is important, because those wetlands acted as nature's "speed bumps" for hurricanes. They protected the city. Moreover, they provided a natural habitat for a variety of species, and were home to a annual $2 billion fishing industry that supplied the entire nation. The levees need to be rebuilt, but now is the time to do it in an environmentally friendly way. The city **can** be rebuilt to withstand hurricanes. It **can** be rebuilt so it doesn't sink any more. Now is the time to do it right.

I read this in other places, but this is from Wikipedia: Much of the city is located below sea level between the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain, so the city is surrounded by levees. Until the early 20th century, construction was largely limited to the slightly higher ground along old natural river levees and bayous, since much of the rest of the land was swampy and subject to frequent flooding. This gave the 19th century city the shape of a crescent along a bend of the Mississippi, the origin of the nickname The Crescent City. In the 1910s engineer and inventor A. Baldwin Wood enacted his ambitious plan to drain the city, including large pumps of his own design which are still used. All rain water must be pumped up to the canals which drain into Lake Pontchartrain. Wood's pumps and drainage allowed the city to expand greatly in area. However, pumping of groundwater from underneath the city has resulted in subsidence. The subsidence greatly increased the flood risk, should the levees be breached or precipitation be in excess of pumping capacity (as was the case in 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina). This, and the other sources I read, blame the pumping of groundwater out, which caused subsidence.... and not the silts issue many people claim. The ground that is subsiding and sinking once was swamps, for the most part. And personally I think it's a moot point, except in the fact that if the subsidence was from pumping out the groundwater and not because of the silts not being deposited.. then that knowledge takes away the environmental groups agendas and frees up more resources to use in rebuilding the city. There are two laws that we were taught in Engineering. The first is that Water always seeks it's own level. The other is water always tries to return to it's original course. Sooner or later, unless we raise the city itself to above sea level, the water will always be trying to reclaim it's rightful spot.

Very interesting, Outlooker. The subsidence was caused from pumping out the groundwater! That makes sense. Hmmm... Would it then make more sense to rebuild the areas that are on higher ground only? Is it feasible to raise the city to sea-level? And if it is, would the city remain above sea-level, or would it sink again? What are the social and economic ramifications of rebuilding New Orleans to it's pre-1910 size? And does this really take away the environmental agenda? What about the wetlands?

I kid you not...on pbs compelling models that new orleans will be an island below sea level...and it wasn't just the wetlands abby, it's been the assault and washing away by Katrina and other hurricanes. I know people want to make this a "political" debate and an "environmental" debate, but in reality there are some very very compelling physical reasons not to invest in NO. I don't care either way. I don't have a dog in that fight. In reality, it's a very short time of project, 70 years. Now one more hurricane level three will wash away more. I believe they need to consider the option of looking at these models and stop short term rebuilding and putting more people at risk. The next time, people may not be so "lucky" if you want to call what they went thru as luck.

Look, I hate to beat a dead horse, but New Orleans made it fine throught Hurrican Katrina, it was at least a day later that the levees broke and caused the damage they had. Meanwhiile the communities directly south of New Orleans were completely devastated, as in NOTHING there. Also everyone seems to concentrate so hard on NO that they totally disregard that this storm affected an amazingly large area. In coastal Mississippi, there were 80,000 homes either completely destroyed or so damaged that they have to be torn down. There are complete cities that have been almost completely wiped out, no police stations, no fire stations , no schools, there are still people here living in tents and patiently waiting for FEMA trailers. Our Governor Haley Barbour did an amazing job and the people or this community were out the door as soon as it was safe, helping their neighbors and themselves. We didn't sit and wait. It is so sad to drive aroung this beautiful community and see the devastation and to know how long it will take to get back to "normal" but we will, we always do. I am not begrudging NO the help they need and deserve, I just don't want the people in Mississippi to be overlooked. I was blessed in that I had no damage other than minor roof damage and a couple of trees down, but the entire southern part of this state was completely devastated and it is kind of frustrating to hear everyone only talk about NO. Parts of Louisiana and Texas had devastating damage from Rita and I think they are being overlooked too. Parts of Fl had horrible damage from Wilma , and I think they are also being overlooked.

Hi Agnana :) Let's not confuse the quantity of news coverage with the amount of help available. New Orleans did receive a disproportionate amount of news coverage. But its residents didn't receive a disproportionate amount of aid. All victims of federally declared disasters are entitled to government aid based on the same criteria. New Orleans residents were entitled to no more and no less than other Katrina victims or victims of other disasters. Frankly, I'm less concerned about media coverage than I am about help available. As a Wilma victim, I don't feel that our needs have been overlooked. And if the rest of the world doesn't know or care about the amount of damage here, that's ok by me. As I said to Aden, I don't think my problems compare to those who lost people that they loved. I can replace my house. I can replace my car, my wardrobe, my jewelry, or my bank account. I can replace every thing that I own. All it takes is hard work, and I'm not afraid of that. But I could never replace my children. I could never replace my parents, my pets or the people that I hold dear. Thank G-d my children are safe, my parents are safe, my pets are safe, and my friends are all safe. And just for good measure, the government is going to help us rebuild. I have no reason to complain about the attention given to New Orleans; I have every reason to be grateful. I think one reason New Orleans has gotten a disproportionate amount of news coverage is because the hurricane in and of itself isn't what victimized the people of New Orleans. They were victimized for years by corrupt officials who misappropriated funds allocated for levee repair. They were victimized by inexperienced government officials, who failed to implement appropriate plans to keep them safe, a corrupt police force who took part in looting the city, and a poorly planned and uncoordinated response to the disaster. We were victimized by natural disasters. Our losses could not have been prevented. They were victimized by the very people they trusted to keep them safe.

you have to know that the help goes where the light is shined. i am talking about help cant always speak well but will always help where i can

I totally agree with your last paragraph about NO. It has been known for years that just about all the government officials in La are corrupt. There are massive amounts of money that have been allocated for levee reinforcement that has simply "disappeared" . The government officials have known for years that the levees would not stand a direct hit from probably a Cat.1 , let alone anything stronger. I didn't mean to sound petty about news coverage, but after hearing it over and over again it starts to get a little under your skin. Specially when you drive around on a daily basis and see such massive devastation over such a large area. Back to the officials that did such a lousy job in La. watching the Governors of Mississippi and Florida really makes you proud of how quickly they responded and were actually pretty prepared to start handling things as soon as the storm was over. I am extremely grateful for the fact that I still have a house and all the people I love are safe. Granted some of them are living with me while they repair their house! I have many friends that don't have houses anymore and many friends that have severely damaged houses , but thank God no one I know lost any family members. Hopefully next hurricane season will go easier on us. (Fingers crossed big time!) By the way you are a very eloquent writer, I really enjoy reading yur posts.

Thank you, Agnana. I really enjoy reading your posts, too. :)

The models of the COASTAL changes NOT levees indicate a huge change in the model. I only can say that you might want to research this as it was very clear that the COASTAL SHORE LINES NOT THE LEVEES has totally changed and NOT changed back. It's a huge change. I wish I had more information and will look for it. It was not media hype but true dynamic models done by legitmate groups. As for being overlooked, it affected many many people and it's a time thing. I don't know. Navyvet and Abby are more in touch with the realities there. I don't trust the media, as it is more "staged" than "news"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3217961/ Go to the middle of the page. This is a very astute article looking at all the issues of NO and surrounding areas, what can and cannot be done. It's interesting. And it takes into account not just the levees but actually below sea level areas that were once higher...trends. It a more genuine approach to what the future of the area can be and should be.

Thanks, Moogie. Very interesting reading. What do you think is a reasonable plan? Rebuild? Rebuild part of the city? Abandon the city? Enclose the city or sections of it with redundant walls? The port is vital to the nation's ecomony. So is the fishing industry and the oil industry. I read one suggestion, I don't remember where, that I think was written tongue in cheek. Rebuild the entire city on stilts, eliminate roadways, transportation would have to be by water taxi or underground tunnels, and tear down the levees and let the bowl fill. Off the wall? Maybe.

Given those models, move the port to another area. Let the wetlands come back. I do believe Mother Nature is more in charge than we are :) and that is the factor that this man used that made for a more "realistic" view. I am also concerned that how in the H-ll would one plan for emergency evacuation if highways were under water, where one accident or fire could keep everyone trapped? As this area is so dangerous anyway, extremely vulnerable do you think it is an option to move this port up the coast and let the water have the lower lands of NO?

The models of the COASTAL changes NOT levees indicate a huge change in the model. I only can say that you might want to research this as it was very clear that the COASTAL SHORE LINES NOT THE LEVEES has totally changed and NOT changed back. It's a huge change. I wish I had more information and will look for it. It was not media hype but true dynamic models done by legitmate groups. As for being overlooked, it affected many many people and it's a time thing. I don't know. Navyvet and Abby are more in touch with the realities there. I don't trust the media, as it is more "staged" than "news" ++++++++ I am not an expert in this field but I can tell you a few things that have been going on. If the wetlands were restored ( and they can be) the New Orleans sinking theory would be just that, a theory. It would eventually happen but over a couple hundred of years compared to 90. All of our Senators and Governors have been trying for decades to get the wetlands restored with no luck from the federal governor. Downtown New Orleans (CBD) did not flood. There are some areas that have been hit year after year ( Grand Isle, Venice, Lafitte) and they rebuild, those are areas that should not be rebuilt. I think the levees breaking played a huge part in the flooding although some people in New Orleans east got water from Lake Ponchartrain and the Canal. New Orleans will be rebuilt but with a completely different infastructure. Experts predict that the Max. population of NOLA will be 175,000 compared to over a half a million. I am rebuilding but if It happens again , I heading more north and will have a little longer drive to work.