National Geographic article about New Orleans

Mr. Sparkle said

From the first page of the article



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.

Click to expand...

What about those two paragraphs is not true?

Later on the article talks about how people can do just fine in Broadmoor. Which is probably also true.

Giegengack's suggestion, in print, looks as ridiculous as it must have sounded when he first proposed it. i think it was put into the article to highlight what a ridiculous suggestion it is.

People are going to build what they are going to build, where they are going to build it. PARTICULARLY with no master plan, two years out.

At issue is the infrastructure. When the levees hold (paragraphs are dedicated to how the Corps tried to sneak sand and shell back into those levee repairs), and the pumping stations work, things are a lot different than when they don't.