Posted on 09/26/2005 5:27:07 AM PDT by OESY
After Hurricane Betsy swamped New Orleans in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson... pledged federal protection. The Army Corps of Engineers designed a Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Barrier to shield the city with flood gates like those that protect the Netherlands from the North Sea. Congress provided funding and construction began. But work stopped in 1977 when a federal judge ruled, in a suit brought by Save Our Wetlands, that the Corps' environmental impact statement was deficient....
Speaking for environmentalists, the Center for Progressive Reform called the charges in the Los Angeles Times "pure fiction" because the judge stopped construction only until the Corps prepared a satisfactory environmental analysis. The Corps instead dropped the barrier in favor of levees that were less controversial, but which failed. So, the Center argues, fault lies with the Corps' bumbling rather than with the environmentalist lawsuit.
That's not fair. The Corps cannot stop a project, conduct a lengthy study, go back to court, and then be sure it can pick up where it left off. Large federal projects ordinarily cannot proceed unless executives and legislatures at several levels of government agree on the same course of action at the same time. That's why litigation delay can kill necessary projects. However responsibility is apportioned, but for the lawsuit, New Orleans would have had the hurricane barrier.
The federal government's reaction was equally unsophisticated. The Corps denied that the originally planned barrier would have saved the city from Katrina, but nonetheless affirmed that it was starting design of a similar barrier to protect against future hurricanes. The Department of Justice emailed field offices asking for evidence of "claims brought by environmental groups" against other Corps projects to protect New Orleans. A Sierra Club attorney complained, "Why are they trying to smear us like this?"...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Sounds like a commie environmentalist. This just proves that environmentalists can sometimes do as much damage as the people trying to destroy the environment.
Yet another good reason for tort reform. And another good reason to hate lawyers. they've been trying to tear apart this country for decades.
There is never a good enough reason to "hate" anybody.
Headline should read Sierra Club cause of death & destruction in New Orleans.
Or, Sierra Club Lied People Died.
Same problem here in Oregon. Coastal river mouths are silted in and the enviro nazis won't permit dredging even after previous floods. Look for a repeat.
Headline should read Sierra Club cause of death & destruction in New Orleans.
Or, Sierra Club Lied People Died.
Same problem here in Oregon. Coastal river mouths are silted in and the enviro nazis won't permit dredging even after previous floods. Look for a repeat.
"There is never a good enough reason to "hate" anybody."
Trite cliche. I'll respond in kind: Never say never.
I hate Osama bin Laden, and I think I have good reason.
RULE OF THUMB: If the "Environmentalists" are for it, oppose it. If they're against it, support it.
And do not give ONE PENNY to "Environmentalist" charities or causes.
The problem is that the locals in both NOLA and LA will screw it up even more than the feds ...
An army would be rather ineffective if the troops couldn't generate a little hate towards the enemy.
That is an absolutely feeble statement. Consider the following list:
...for starters. I hate them all, loathe them, despise them and all their works, regret that they ever lived, and in the case of the living ones would personally kill them with my bare hands and enjoy it.
I think there is plenty of good reason to hate each man on this list. We have several mass murders and sponsors of mass murder, a cannibal, and a traitor. I can hate them quite thoroughly and desire to send them all to Hell at the nearest opportunity, and square it with my religion with no difficulty.
Then there's the whole list of people that I hate, just not enough to want to strangle personally. I will celebrate when they're gone, though. Jane Fonda is an example of this category. I wouldn't harm a hair on her old gray head, but I'll do a happy dance when she's in Hell. I think there's plenty of reason to hate someone who was a traitor on the scale of Pollard but never had his opportunities to stick it to her homeland.
Lawyers in general is a pretty wide net to cast into the "hate" pool, but I understand why people do. Their net impact on civilisation as a group is highly negative. But you have to keep things in proportion. All the lawyers who worked to undermine the levies were counteracted by lawyers working to stop them, who just didn't succeed.
Many lawyers have no morals of their own and would just do anything for a dollar. When they are doing something evil they are very skilled at rationalizing it: "This baby-raper needs good representation. Why, I'm just like John Adams defending Captain Preston of the 29th Foot! And if my guy walks and more babies get raped, why, I'm innocent as the west wind. It's the fault of the prosecutor for not besting me! After all, I'm just a lawyer, I don't really believe in or stand for anything, except the rule of lawyers over common people."
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
I think we all need to learn how to hate correctly. I don't mind if people hate me if they hate me for the right reason(s).
Let's ask them if we have enough wetlands now. After all if something has had water on it once, why then it can never be dried out. Is it OK to dry out New Orleans or would they rather see it wet?
I have never understood why this country allowed the wetlands crowd to take control of the land. I am willing to bet that most of the damage of this series of hurricanes can be laid at the feet of the environmental groups, who always know better than anyone else. Just because they have no common sense is not a reason for leftest judges to dismiss their lawsuits.
"iconoclast.ca" is one of those scams that presents other people's content in its own frame (and, unlike the NYT's about.com, doesn't even let you opt out of the frame).
The real article iconoclast is presenting as its own is here:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19418
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
brownsfan: "I hate Osama bin Laden, and I think I have good reason."
BlueMondaySkipper: "I think we all need to learn how to hate correctly. I don't mind if people hate me if they hate me for the right reason(s)."
Osama? Is that you?
There was an excellent line in the article to the effect that both bureaucrats and environmentalists think that government is a force for good but that it's an argument over which should be in charge... The Enviros, or the Bureaucrats. Well I can answer that one easily! Neither!!!
There are many other astute observations in this editorial and I hope it gets wide circulation and further amplification in both new media and old.
Schroenbroad actually wants the US to turn over tens of billions to the tender mercies of Louisiana politicians?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.