Hurricane Recovery and Aftermath forum...

[TSmith274]

This forum was created as the Katrina aftermath dominated the normal boards. I'm wondering, will this sub-forum remain for years to come? Or, is this just temporary? It's certainly been a good service, and I'd expect to see it maintained for years to come. We all know that any hurricane season, for all it's excitment and scientific discussions ultimately leads to heartache and discussions of suffering and ultimate recovery... better suited to this sub-forum. Any mods wanna chime in? Is this here to stay?

[vbhoutex]

It is here to stay.

[HurryKane]

It is here to stay.

*makes like vbhoutex's avatar*

[Dionne]

It is here to stay.

*makes like vbhoutex's avatar*

Good! Thank you.

[Audrey2Katrina]

It serves a wonderful purpose, and I'm very glad it will continue to do so.

A2K

[HurricaneBill]

I agree, I think this makes a good check-in board for people in the path of a storm.

The thread about posters in the path of Katrina sure helped those concerned about them.

[Hurricaneman]

I think this forum is one of the better creations of the staff

[Audrey2Katrina]

It's cathartic... and people who have been through what MANY have been through this past year NEED that catharsis.

A2K

[Dionne]

Okay.....lets release some emotion.

This was published in the Washington Post today. It is the final paragraph of a commentary written by Michael Grunwald. He is a staff writer.

"Katrina was only the third-most-intense hurricane of 2005, and it was nowhere near New Orleans when it made landfall. The Big Easy is still waiting for the Big One. And if it hits-when it hits-we're going to wonder why we ignored Katrinas warning."

Kind of spooky if you ask me. I don't know what to think?

[Audrey2Katrina]

Okay.....lets release some emotion.

This was published in the Washington Post today. It is the final paragraph of a commentary written by Michael Grunwald. He is a staff writer.

"Katrina was only the third-most-intense hurricane of 2005, and it was nowhere near New Orleans when it made landfall. The Big Easy is still waiting for the Big One. And if it hits-when it hits-we're going to wonder why we ignored Katrinas warning."

Kind of spooky if you ask me. I don't know what to think?

Personally I have two comments, and while no offense is directed at anyone (except maybe the clown (IMHO) who wrote this article, at the Washington Post, which is a paper I have little regard for anyway.

First: I take ENORMOUS umbrage at this (deleted) saying that it was "ONLY" anything at all. The use of the adjective "only" in describing this storm is horribly offensive to me as it is anything but an "only" of anything unless you want to say "only the most devastating natural disaster in a century of US history". Anything else is offensive and extremely insensitive IMHO. That "third most intense storm of the 2005 season" in and of itself is misleading when that "third most intense" referse to what is STILL one of the MOST intense storms in the history of the Atlantic Basin. And at that, the THIRD most INTENSE landfalling storm in US History! (worse than ANY this year in US LANDFALLS) Of course with their typical predilection for less than the WHOLE truth, they failed to mention that rather significant fact. That said, I reiterate that with its penchant for being less-than-wholly-objective, nothing in the Washington Post (affectionately dubbed comPost by many) would surprise me all that much--offend me, yes--surprise me no.

Secondly: The statement "It was nowhere NEAR New Orleans when it made landfall" is either blatantly false, deception at its finest, or indicative of blithe ignorance at its worst--take your pick! When it struck Buras, it was approximately 50 miles south of New Orleans if you want to play with the statistics (which is what I think the game is) but for the record, and I know I don't have to say this to the "informed" folks here at S2K, the storms 2nd landfall (While still a 3-mind you--and by "some" accounts still darned near a 4) its western eyewall actually passed over the extreme eastern parts of the CITY LIMITS of New Orleans, and at most, approximately 20 miles to the east of DOWNTOWN New Orleans. If this is "Nowhere NEAR" a city whose limits it actually passed directly over, pray tell what does this pretentious geographer call "near"???

For crying out loud 80% of the city went UNDER WATER, and maybe it's just because this thing hit so close to home with me, but I am quite angry that this poor excuse for journalistic enterprise would characterize this event as something less than the cataclysm it decidedly WAS--not just for New Orleans, but for the entire region she devastated. Popular Mechanics did a similar job of deception in it's article about "debunking the Myths of Katrina" in which it pretty much said a lot of the same nonsense in what appears to me to be an extreme trivialization of the horrors that most definitely DID take place.

Could it have been worse? OF COURSE it could have... I think anyone with a brain knows that a track around 15-20 miles west would have brought much worse wind damage and a much higher death toll; but the manner in which this article strays from the "full picture", and paints one that is patently untrue/misleading, is deceptive at best, and a quintessential example of POOR journalism at it's very best.

Just my vent!

A2K

[HurricaneBill]

Honestly, I think the Big One is NEVER going to happen. Why? Because it can't. There will always be some factor that keeps it from being THE Big One. Whether the surge didn't come in at the right angle, or it didn't hit a major city head on, or "American Idol" beat it in the ratings, they will ALWAYS say "It was bad, but it could have been worse."

[TSmith274]

A2K, That kinda reminds me of that article you mentioned. I see the author's point, but it is off base, for all the reasons that A2K mentioned. Obviously, it would have been worse if Katrina had hit a little farther west. The whole city would have gone under... along with large portions of the surrounding parishes. But I also think that something good may come out of articles like this. Some will say that it is evidence that New Orleans is no longer viable. I don't agree with that. But, more importantly, it may bring attention to the fact that there are more things that can and should be done to save the city of New Orleans. Knowing what could happen and doing nothing about it is far different than knowing and doing something to prevent it. It's gut-check time for this country. An American city is in danger of being lost forever. Will we, in the good old American way, preserve this city with our supposed technological knowhow? Or will we allow it to die? This question is one that will be raised many times, and it is painful for those of us who call it home. But more importantly, it should be a call to action to save it, and I can onl hope and pray that we, as a nation, are still capable of such feats. I know we are.

BTW, great news on the sub-forum. I'm glad to hear that it'll stick around.

[HurryKane]

HurricaneBill, I agree. The chances that everything will be set up perfectly for 'the big one' are slim to none, because the definition of 'the big one' still has slight variances in it depending on who is defining it. Even officials can't agree on every single detail of the perfect New Orleans storm.

It's all relative. For many, Katrina was 'the big one' if it caused them loss of life, loss of loved one, loss of belongings, etc. For others Katrina was just a speedbump in the highway of life.** It's inevitable that people will use their own perspective to color the definition of 'the big one' in terms of damage and recovery.



** I say this with no disrespect to any Katrina victim, I simply mean that a lucky few folks were affected by the storm much much less than others.

[f5]

Katrina was a very storng CAT 5 with 175 mph sustained winds she also took up the entire GOM how much bigger could the big one be.If Katrina struck NO head on with that strength would they consider that the Big One?

[Audrey2Katrina]

The guy/gal is a blithering idiot! IMO He/she may have had, as TSmith points out, a good point to make; but in using terminology like "only" and "nowhere near" they lost any semblance of credibility with me!

A2K

[HurryKane]

When reading back over this thread I noticed this:

This was published in the Washington Post today.

The WP has been notoriously wrong, ill-informed, and flat out misleading about what is going on down here in both MS and LA. It's almost as if none of their reporters/writers have even bothered to come down here and find out what is going on. The Sun-Herald raked them over the coals for alternately saying that a Mississippi neighborhood was wiped out by the surge, and then later saying that us racist Mississippians razed the neighborhood because it was black; and that we didn't get hit all that hard and were "looting" from Louisiana when asking for part of the 4+ billion aid package.

The Post is locked away in their perfect little world where just enough information to be dangerous is enough to make their perfect little judgements about anything and everything that they know nothing about.

In short, they can kiss my grits.

[Audrey2Katrina]

In short, they can kiss my grits.

My sentiments EXACTLY

A2K

[Dionne]

I wonder if Michael Grunwald has even visited this region? You can view all the pictures......watch all the home videos associated with Katrina......and your still not going to understand what happened. It is so easy for the people on the outside looking in to criticize us. We're doing the best we can with what we have.

There is only one thing I would have done differently. I would have hog tied my daughter and forced her to evacuate further inland. The terror of not knowing her fate during the first 12 hours after landfall was just to much to handle emotionally.