Katrina Is Really Really Bad – Part II

Ken AshfordBreaking NewsLeave a Comment

From the NOAA:

MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS…PERHAPS LONGER. AT LEAST ONE HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL FAILURE. ALL GABLED ROOFS WILL FAIL…LEAVING THOSE HOMES SEVERELY DAMAGED OR DESTROYED.

THE MAJORITY OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS WILL BECOME NON FUNCTIONAL. PARTIAL TO COMPLETE WALL AND ROOF FAILURE IS EXPECTED. ALL WOOD FRAMED LOW RISING APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL BE DESTROYED. CONCRETE BLOCK LOW RISE APARTMENTS WILL SUSTAIN MAJOR DAMAGE…INCLUDING SOME WALL AND ROOF FAILURE.

HIGH RISE OFFICE AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL SWAY DANGEROUSLY…A FEW TO THE POINT OF TOTAL COLLAPSE. ALL WINDOWS WILL BLOW OUT.

AIRBORNE DEBRIS WILL BE WIDESPREAD…AND MAY INCLUDE HEAVY ITEMS SUCH AS HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES AND EVEN LIGHT VEHICLES. SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES AND LIGHT TRUCKS WILL BE MOVED. THE BLOWN DEBRIS WILL CREATE ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTION. PERSONS…PETS…AND LIVESTOCK EXPOSED TO THE WINDS WILL FACE CERTAIN DEATH IF STRUCK.

POWER OUTAGES WILL LAST FOR WEEKS…AS MOST POWER POLES WILL BE DOWN AND TRANSFORMERS DESTROYED. WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING…BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED. FEW CROPS WILL REMAIN. LIVESTOCK LEFT EXPOSED TO THE WINDS WILL BE KILLED.

Katrina Is Really Really Bad

Ken AshfordBreaking NewsLeave a Comment

Look.  We know that all hurricanes are bad.  And we know that category 5 hurricanes are really bad. 

But something like this hitting New Orleans is perhaps the worst.  New Orleans lies below sea level, and is protected by levees.  It’s basically a large bowl, and even in normal weather, water has to be pumped out of the basin.  And those pumps rely on electricity, something that is unlikely to work in the wake of Katrina.

Read this, published in American Prospect, on May 23 of this year.  And as you read, keep in mind that they are predicting 28-foot storm surges, and that Katrina will hit New Orleans at high tide:

In the event of a slow-moving Category 4 or Category 5 hurricane (with winds up to or exceeding 155 miles per hour), it’s possible that only those crow’s nests would remain above the water level. Such a storm, plowing over the lake, could generate a 20-foot surge that would easily overwhelm the levees of New Orleans, which only protect against a hybrid Category 2 or Category 3 storm (with winds up to about 110 miles per hour and a storm surge up to 12 feet). Soon the geographical "bowl" of the Crescent City would fill up with the waters of the lake, leaving those unable to evacuate with little option but to cluster on rooftops — terrain they would have to share with hungry rats, fire ants, nutria, snakes, and perhaps alligators. The water itself would become a festering stew of sewage, gasoline, refinery chemicals, and debris.

***

A direct hit from a powerful hurricane on New Orleans could furnish perhaps the largest natural catastrophe ever experienced on U.S. soil. Some estimates suggest that well over 25,000 non-evacuees could die. Many more would be stranded, and successful evacuees would have nowhere to return to. Damages could run as high as $100 billion. In the wake of such a tragedy, some may even question the wisdom of trying to rebuild the city at all. And to hear hurricane experts like Louisiana State University’s Ivor van Heerden tell it, it’s only a matter of time before the "big one" hits.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Here’s an article from 2002:

Imagine what a disaster it would be if a hurricane-driven storm surge up to 20 feet high swept into New Orleans or another Louisiana coastal city.

That’s exactly the type of thing a team of Louisiana scientists will be thinking about over the next few years. Their task is to come up with such scenarios and try to figure out both what would happen and how best to recover.

The Louisiana Board of Regents recently approved a $3.7 million grant for the five-year study. The money comes from the state’s share of the national tobacco lawsuit settlement.

Ivor van Heeden, deputy director of the LSU Hurricane Center, will head the effort.

The coastal wetlands that protect New Orleans and other coastal cities in Louisiana are shrinking, making people more vulnerable to hurricanes.

Even a slow-moving category 3 hurricane, which has sustained winds of 111-130 miles per hour, could flood New Orleans, van Heerden said.

"If you flood it completely, you are going to have 13 to 17 feet of water in the city. That forces people to get up on their roofs," van Heerden said. "There would be upwards of 400,000 people trapped because a large number will not evacuate, a large number don’t own motor vehicles, some are disabled or street people."

One idea on how to rescue those people is what van Heerden and his associates call "Operation Dunkirk." Private boats from the North Shore would be used to reach people in New Orleans, van Heerden said.

The name comes from the World World II evacuation of Dunkirk, where a flotilla of private boats shuttled across the English Channel to rescue Allied troops who were trapped by the Germans in France.

Van Heerden said authorities would obviously use helicopters too, but noted that an inundated New Orleans "would stress every resource we’ve got."

The health of people stranded on their roofs would also be a concern.

"Typically, they don’t take clothing, food, water and, particularly, medicines," he said.

Getting the stranded people out of the city would be just one of many difficult aspects of post-storm recovery. Pumping all the water out of New Orleans, most of which lies below sea level, could take up to nine weeks, he said.

"The flood waters are going to contain a myriad of chemicals, in additional to animal corpses — be they wild animals or pets — or even human," he said.

"We could have fairly large and widespread disease outbreaks, and not just one disease," he said.

Dengue fever, West Nile or some other type of encephalitis and cholera are just a few of the potential illnesses, van Heerden said.

Houston’s experience with Tropical Storm Allison last year showed buildings would have to be decontaminated, a time-consuming task, he said.

"Maybe we will have 700,000 people homeless," he said. "We will have to build tent cities. Where are we going to build them? When you concentrate people like that, the disease potential goes up enormously. … This would be a catastrophe, a national catastrophe, and the economic impact would probably exceed $50 billion."

Mastheadhurricanekatrina

No You Can’t Have A Pony Update

Ken AshfordBloggingLeave a Comment

The sidebar has been modified (temporarily) to provide Hurricane Katrina current webcams, maps, and updates.  Some of the webcams from New Orleans and Baton Rouge will probably go down (either deliberately or due to the hurricane), but that’s the nature of the biz.  Once it all, uh, blows over, the sidebar will return to its regular pointless status.

Reality TV Comes To Iraq

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

From the New York Times:

Reality TV could turn out to be the most durable Western import in Iraq. It has taken root with considerably greater ease than American-style democracy. Since spring 2004, when "Materials and Labor" made its debut, a constellation of reality shows has burst onto TV screens across Iraq.

True to the genre, "Materials and Labor" has a simple conceit at its heart – Al Sharqiya, an Iraqi satellite network, offers Baghdad residents the chance to have homes that were destroyed by the war rebuilt at no cost to them.

The same network also broadcasts a weekly show called "Congratulations!" featuring producers who help young, poor couples marry, and another that follows TV crews on road trips to hand out $1,000 to lottery winners.

This summer, a rival network, Sumeria, began running "Iraq Star," an amateur singing competition that bears more than a passing resemblance to "American Idol."

The phenomenon is a testament to both the globe-straddling reach of American popular culture and the ease with which people in other parts of the world – even those who are hostile toward the United States – adapt that culture for their own uses.

First we gave them "Shock & Awe", now they have "Materials & Labor".  Great.

Overheard in New York

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/Idiocy, Web RecommendationsLeave a Comment

I’m becoming a big fan of this website, whose name is self-explanatory: http://www.overheardinnewyork.com.  Check it out.

Speaking of New York, why can’t Ann Coulter shut upUPDATE (8/29/05):  Apparently conservatives are thinking the same thing.  The Arizona Daily Star has dropped Ann Coulter as a syndicated columnist, with this explanation:

Finally, we’ve decided that syndicated columnist Ann Coulter has worn out her welcome. Many readers find her shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited. And those are the words used by readers who identified themselves as conservatives.

Pro-Bush Supporters Attack Themselves

Ken AshfordBush & Co., Iraq, Right Wing Punditry/Idiocy, SheehanLeave a Comment

OopsProtest Warriors is a conservative activist group.  Their tradmark is to show up at progressive rallies posing as liberals and carrying signs that say things like: "Communism has killed only 100 million people; let’s give it another chance!" and "The ACLU – we don’t hate religions – we just hate Christianity!"

Get it?  Because people will read the signs and say . . . "Hey, wait!  You’re not one of us!"

Thus proving . . . um . . . I don’t know.

Anyway, according to this report, they showed up at an anti-Sheehan rally in Crawford, Texas.  They were carrying signs that said: "Say NO to war (unless a Democrat is President)!"

And then…

In one heated moment, members of the pro-Bush crowd turned on what they mistakenly thought were a group of anti-war protesters, cursing them, threatening them and tearing down their signs. A police officer rushed the group to safety.

Heh.

UPDATE:  Ohmigod!  It happened again!  Can’t the right just learn to get along?

Operation Yellow Elephant In Action

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

Hats off and kudos to this kid who went to a meeting of college Republicans, passing out recruitment fliers (you know, because Bush has called for sacrifice, and because the military news people.

He filmed it.

Best part is when he is chastized:

One thing you’re missing the point on… there are some people..and you need to be more sensitive to it… there are some people here tonight that would like to serve our country, and would like to do it. But, for one reason or another they’re unable to. You need to realize there are people out there who would do that, people right in this room. But they can’t do it… you’re not being sensitive to those people who do not have the opportunity to do that for one reason or another.

Yeah, must suck.

That’s Why We’re Fighting?

Ken AshfordIraq, Right Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

Here’s what they’re saying at RedState about the rationale for the war (hey, at least somebody’s saying it:

The black-and-white, "get the bad guys" approach can be heard from the Democrats and their allies in the MSM and the American left. They are the ones with the GET OBL! mentaility, as if removing the main bad guys will solve the problem of terror….

He’s right.  Getting rid of bin Laden or the "main bad guys" isn’t going to solve the problem of terror completely, but it is far better than getting rid of lots of "little bad guys", many of whom weren’t terrorists to being with.  And that is all we are doing in Iraq.

And besides, doesn’t our failure to get bin Laden increase his mystique in the Muslim world?  Which, in turn, creates more terrorists?

So now we observe the idiocy of the right.  It’s like saying that capturing Hitler wasn’t going to end Nazi ideals.  Well, we killed Hitler, and although there are still Nazis today, it did kind of put a rather huge dent in the fascist movement, wouldn’t you say?

But what’s the alternative he offers?

The President has articulated a vision wherein democracy, free societies with free institutions, defeats terror.

Well, clearly that is Bush’s vision, but he fails to explain how free societies and democracies defeat terror.  I envision a world where free chocolate ends all racism and sexism, but my thinking that doesn’t make it so.

Those interests mentioned above want . . .

Here we go.  When a conservative starts to write about what liberals "want", you know the next thing out of his mouth is simply and flatly a desparate lie.

Those interests mentioned above want to turn Iraq into a mindless pursuit of WMD…

See what I mean?

…while the President speaks of the broader goal of squeezing the area in which the terrorists are welcome.

Hey, to be totally honest, I’m not worried about terrorists living in Iraq.  Better there than here, or London.  When you squeeze the toothpaste tube hard, the toothpaste doesn’t disappear — it just gets all over the places.

Friday iPod Random Ten

Ken AshfordPersonalLeave a Comment

  1. Laurie3Language Is A Virus – Laurie Anderson
  2. Black Coffee In Bed – Squeeze
  3. The Color Of The Night – Lauren Christy
  4. Ain’t No Mountain High Enough – The Supremes
  5. Marathon – Jacques Brel Is Alive And Well And Living In Paris (Orignal Cast)
  6. Goodnight Tonight – Paul McCartney
  7. Year Of The Cat – Al Stewart
  8. Mummer’s Dance – Loreena McKennitt
  9. The Old Crone (Port Na Callich) – Capercaillie
  10. Prologue – Renaissance

This Can’t Be Good

Ken AshfordIraq2 Comments

From Reuters:

BAQUBA, Iraq (Reuters) – Thousands marched in adoring praise of Iraq’s deposed leader Saddam Hussein on Friday, offering a stark display of the loss of power and leadership felt by some of Iraq’s Sunni Arabs.

Drawing inspiration from the Baath party strongman, who now languishes in jail awaiting trial, marchers in Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) northeast of Baghdad, danced and chanted his name and condemned plans by the Shi’ite and Kurdish-led government to push through draft constitution to create a federal Iraq.

They accused the Shi’ite Islamists in government of kowtowing to Iran, Iraq’s non-Arab neighbor where many Shi’ites sought refuge during Saddam’s rule, and the United States, which backs the government with some 140,000 troops.

"Bush, Bush, listen well; We all love Saddam Hussein!" crowds chanted. "We reject the American and Iranian constitution" and "No to a constitution that breaks up Iraq," their placards read.

Okay.  It’s Baquba, a heavily Baathist part of Iraq.  But still…. thousands?

If nothing else, it puts the whole neo-con "this was like ilberating the Jews in WWII" meme in perspective.  How many Jews liberated from concentration camps in WWII held "We love Hitler" rallies?  I’m going to guess — none.

Jon Stewart and Christopher Hitchens

Ken AshfordIraq, Right Wing Punditry/Idiocy, War on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

TdshitchensAs I watched "The Daily Show" last night, in which Jon Stewart debated Christopher Hitchens about the Iraq War, I thought many things:

"This is how it should be done.  None of the screaming pundits, like on Fox, MSNBC, or even CNN.  It’s intelligent AND entertaining"

"Damn, Stewart is good.  He’s going toe-to-toe with Hitchens"

"”Tell me why I’m wrong’, Stewart says.  That’s the way to ask a question"

"DAMN, Stewart is good.  I always knew he was articulate but…"

"SERIOUSLY, DAMN!  Stewart is good!"

And it went on like that.  I think it was the first time when I heard a progressive make the point — clearly — that the anti-war crowd isn’t against fighting terrorism, it’s just that we think the way Bush is conducting this war is counterproductive.

It really was an intelligent conversation, and one in which (in my view) Stewart got the best of Hitchens, who was selling the virtues of exportable democracy [read: Crusades without the God].

And it came after a wonderful send-up/analysis of Bush’s rhetoric — which amounts to nothing but repetition of the same platitudes.

I wish I had a full transcript of clip.  But for now, Wonkette’s abbreviated segment will have to suffice (yes, she was bowled over, too, although I thought Hitchens wasn’t as bad as she suggests):

Stewart: The people who say we shouldn’t fight in Iraq aren’t saying it’s our fault. . . That is the conflation that is the most disturbing. . .

Hitch: Don’t you hear people saying. . .

Stewart: You hear people saying a lot of stupid [bleep]. . . But there are reasonable disagreements in this country about the way this war has been conducted, that has nothing to do with people believing we should cut and run from the terrorists, or we should show weakness in the face of terrorism, or that we believe that we have in some way brought this upon ourselves. . .

Hitch: [Sputter]

Stewart: They believe that this war is being conducted without transparency, without credibility, and without competence…

Hitch: I’m sorry, sunshine… I just watched you ridicule the president for saying he wouldn’t give. . .

Stewart: No, you misunderstood why. . . . That’s not why I ridiculed the president. He refuses to answer questions from adults as though we were adults and falls back upon platitudes and phrases and talking points that does a disservice to the goals that he himself shares with the very people needs to convince.

[Audience erupts in applause]

Hitch: You want me to believe you’re really secretly on the side of the Bush administration. . .

Stewart: I secretly need to believe he’s on my side. He’s too important and powerful a man not to be.

Hitch: [Sputter, return to talking about his latest book.]

UPDATE:  Crooks and Liars has the vid.  I thought they might.  They note that it was "heavily requested", so I suspect others will be talking about this today.

Taking Powerline Seriously

Ken AshfordBush & Co., Iraq, Right Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

Paul Mirengoff makes it clear why the other guys at Powerline don’t let him post so much.  Today he writes about "Taking The President Seriously":

The subject on yesterday’s edition of the O’Reilly Factor was how long we have to turn things around in Iraq. O’Reilly thought that President Bush has about six months to show the American people that we’re making progress.

I need to make a countdown thingee for my sidebar.

Bill O’Reilly is as astute as they come, and —

Wait.  Say that again?!?

Bill O’Reilly is as astute as they come, and  his —

Bwaaaaa-hahahahahahahaha! [sniff, sigh, chortle]. 

Okay.  Well, let me compile a short list of possible "theys":  drunks, pathological liars, rocks.

Bill O’Reilly is as astute as they come, and  his nervousness about the situation in Iraq is understandable. However, I think the best answer to his question is that we have until January 2009, when Bush’s second term expires, to turn it around.

Right.  The salient factor should be the presidential elections, not the congressional elections.  And sure as hell not the death of American soldiers, or innocent Iraqis, or even, you know, whether or not a victory is even possible.

It’s the president’s decision how long we stay engaged, and at what level. I believe that Bush is committed to winning in Iraq and, if neccessary, will take all the time available to him to accomplish this.

Call it the Military Corallary to Parkinson’s Law.

Nor, under our democratic system, is there anything improper about this single-minded approach. We decide public policy through elections, not polls.

Right.  Once elected, our leaders should stop listening to the people.  That’s the democratic way, don’t you know.

When Bush ran for president last year, the military situation was probably comparable to what it is today.

Except for the fact that insurgency attacks were less frequent than now, and there were 680 fewer U.S. casualties than now.  Other than that, pretty much the same.

Bush promised to stay until the job was done. He set no timetable, nor did he say or imply that the job would be completed soon.

Ummm . . .

103002

Whatever.

He was re-elected with a majority of the votes cast. He’s entitled to stay the course.

It’s about him, don’t you see.  The presidency is an entitlement, not a position of public service and responsiblity.  He doesn’t serve us; if anything, we serve him.

O’Reilly and his guest Douglas Brinkley pointed to the 2006 elections. But I doubt that the congressional elections will constrain Bush. First, there’s no reason to believe that the Republicans will suffer significantly due to the war.

There’s no reason?  How about polls showing dissatisfaction with the war, and with those (primarily Republicans) who support it?

The 2006 math is quite favorable to the Republicans keeping solid control of both Houses, barring overconfidence, arrogance, or corruption on the part of a critical mass of the party’s incumbents.

I think it’s the corruption part you need to worry about most.

And individual members who think the war is hurting them will tend to distance themselves from Bush.

And Bush won’t be constrained even by members of his own party.  He’s a fucking king, don’t you understand?

Second, I doubt that Bush would change course significantly even if he thought doing so would materially affect the 2006 elections. As Bush spelled out before an Idaho crowd last night . . . "Terrorists will emerge from Iraq one of two ways: emboldened or defeated." I don’t expect the president to opt for "emboldened" in the hope of influencing the 2006 election.

That, of course, presumes what most people have rejected by now: that the "terrorists" fighting in Iraq represent the worldwide population of terrorists and potential terrorists.  The sad news, which holdouts like Paul Mirengoff  seem to forget, is that even if we defeat every insurgent in Iraq, that will only make worldwide terrorism worse.  (See, e.g., Tube, London).

America isn’t used to having a president who does what he says he will do.

Really.  Let’s go to the way-back machine, to the Presidential debates of 2000:

LEHRER: New question.

How would you go about, as president, deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force? Generally.

BUSH: Well, if it’s in our vital national interests. And that means whether or not our territory — our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our alliances — our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force.

Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.

Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win, whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped.

And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.

***

The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.

[Source]

But like it or not, George W. Bush is such a president.

Not.