National Geographic article about New Orleans

From the first page of the article

The long odds led Robert Giegengack, a geologist at the University of Pennsylvania, to tell policymakers a few months after the storm that the wealthiest, most technologically advanced nation on the globe was helpless to prevent another Katrina: "We simply lack the capacity to protect New Orleans." He recommended selling the French Quarter to Disney, moving the port 150 miles (240 kilometers) upstream, and abandoning one of the most historic and culturally significant cities in the nation. Others have suggested rebuilding it as a smaller, safer enclave on higher ground.

But history, politics, and love of home are powerful forces in the old river town. Instead of rebuilding smarter or surrendering, New Orleans is doing what it has always done after such disasters: bumping up the levees just a little higher, rebuilding the same flood-prone houses back in the same low spots, and praying that hurricanes hit elsewhere. Some former New Orleanians may have had enough. More than a third of the city's pre-Katrina population has yet to return. Those who have face deserted neighborhoods, surging crime, skyrocketing insurance, and a tangle of red tape—simply to rebuild in harm's way.

Thanks National Geographic.

Sheesh.

I'd also really like to read an article in a major publication that does not rely almost entirely on Professors Bea and Van Hjeerdan. The last time Bea was written up in NG, he cupped a handful of standing water from the street in the Ninth Ward near the floodwall and declared that it must've seeped through the floodwall because it was "salty."

Articles like this paint the bleakest picture possible, eroding confidence among those that are here and giving ammo to those that would just as soon shove us off the OCS and into the Gulf.