Katrina's victims ask for huge checks

[Achilles]

Avoid getting hit by the a US Postal Carrier at all cost.

These sound like words to live by. Thanks for the info.

[tk102]

I'm afraid I don't see how this supports your earlier statement or addresses my point.

I'm confused too. I lost track of what your point is. The steady drumbeat of skepticism drowned it out I think. Unless that was your point, to give a lesson in skepticism, in that case I hear ya loud and clear.

 

Maybe you could state your point explicitly for those just tuning in and those of us who missed seeing it in post #1.

 

You've stated that you can pass judgment on the amount, but you don't state why....you've indicated that it might have something to do with the amount,

You think that might be it?

but again that seems pretty consistent with idea that we're dealing with punitive damages (i.e. trying to teach someone a lesson, etc). Apologies in advance if I am missing something truly obvious.

Tell me Achilles, at what point do you judge $3q as being ludicrous/non-ludicrous? For judges it seems (at least regarding D3's quote) that even a punitive to compensatory ratio of "500 to 1" is breathtaking.

 

Yeah, those all sound like plausible alternatives to me.

I think you're alone on that one.

 

The fact that you are cautious enough to add a qualifier makes this statement pretty humorous for me. It seems that deep down you are at least a little aware that there's a possibility for a reasonable explanation that you don't have access to. I guess I'm just not as ashamed to admit it as you are.

What I am aware of is that "attention" may not be the ultimate goal of the plaintiff. But I have judged that the amount claimed is for getting attention. That is why I qualified the statement. It is a publicity stunt in its own right. Questioning whether that is all that it is is as much skepticism as I will grant.

[Darth333]

Glad the victims of Katrina were good for a laugh in your office.

No, not at the victims but at the indecency of that 3 quadrillion claim made by someone trying to take advantage of a tragic event.

[Achilles]

I'm confused too. I lost track of what your point is. The steady drumbeat of skepticism drowned it out I think. Unless that was your point, to give a lesson in skepticism, in that case I hear ya loud and clear.

No, I think it just kinda turned into one along the way. I think I anticipated a few people jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions but there were others that I think I thought better of.

 

Maybe you could state your point explicitly for those just tuning in and those of us who missed seeing it in post #1.

My point was sharing a current news item. I spiced it up a little by planting a seed about the federal gov't denying the state gov't access to oil revenues for oil pumped off their coast.

 

You think that might be it?

Think *what* might be it?

 

Tell me Achilles, at what point do you judge $3q as being ludicrous/non-ludicrous?

Ludicrous/non-ludicrous in relation to what? If the person filing the suit is trying to bankrupt the federal gov't and the federal gov't has more than $3q in cash and assets (I wonder how much a ICBM goes for on ebay), then I would say that $3q is clearly ludicrous...because they didn't ask for enough.

 

For judges it seems at least regarding D3's quote, that even a punitive to compensatory ratio of "500 to 1" is breathtaking.

Hats off to the author for great use of adjectives.

 

I think you're alone on that one.

Really? Because you made them up, so clearly they were plausible enough for you when you posted them.

 

What I am aware of is that "attention" may not be the ultimate goal of the plaintiff.

Okay, so definitively stating that it is without knowing would be wrong? No need to answer. The question was largely rhetorical.

 

But I have judged that the amount claimed is for getting attention. That is why I qualified the statement. It is a publicity stunt in its own right. Questioning whether that is all that it is is as much skepticism as I will grant.

Huh? If the person seriously intends to bankrupt the gov't then you would be wrong, correct? The reality is that you don't know the intent of the plaintiff and neither do I.

 

No, not at the victims but at the indecency of that 3 quadrillion claim made by someone trying to take advantage of a tragic event.

Yes, assuming that's the case, that would be very indecent indeed.

[Corinthian]

The thing is, they won't bankrupt the Federal Government because no Judge worth his salt is ever going to award them even a thousandth this much. I can't believe you're actually making a case where Three Quadrillion Dollars is a reasonable amount to pursue in court. Maybe if the Government destroyed the Solar System that would be a reasonable sum to pursue.

[Web Rider]

Huh? If the person seriously intends to bankrupt the gov't then you would be wrong, correct? The reality is that you don't know the intent of the plaintiff and neither do I.

 

Yes, assuming that's the case, that would be very indecent indeed.

 

And to gain allies in such an argument, one would need publicity. So regardless of if his case is just for publicity, or for some goal(though not a realistic one in this case), he still needs to make headlines.

 

In any case, as Corinthian continually states, no judge would award this because such a sum would a: cause the government to create so much money that money is worthless, or b: cause the destruction of the entire country. Neither of which are equivalent to whatever this man lost. Yes, making a few, directly related individuals suffer for their mistakes, ranging from perhaps the guys in the weather service to FEMA and Bush, is a valid desire after such an event as Katrina.

 

Destroying the country and making 300 million+ people suffer? Eh, not a chance in heck.

[Jae Onasi]

Source please? If at all possible, could your source also show how the amount of water that would have gone over the top of the levees would have been comparable to the amount of water that passed through the breach? Thanks in advance.

Well, I'll go ahead and do the legwork.

Wave force equations for you. Wave velocity was 5 m/s, density is 1g/cc, wave height varied but the highest recorded was 55 feet high. Have fun with your calculator figuring out just how much force that wall of water hit the levee walls with.

Wiki article on 2005 levee failures is a good place to start and has other sources cited so feel free to look those up. Note that on the Eastern side of New Orleans, the storm surge was 24-28 feet, which is 10 feet higher than the levee height in that area. There would have been flooding regardless of the other failures in the system, and there were indeed failures. Note that this is just the storm surge and does not include tidal variation or maximum wave height. NOAA reported a maximum wave height of 55 feet at a point 64 nautical miles south of Dauphin Island, AL, which was greater than any previously recorded wave height. The storm had weakened just before landfall, but wave heights were still greater than the maximum of the levee heights of 23 feet, and overtopping occurred in many places in the levee system. The high flood water mark in at least one spot was nearly 28 feet (note that wave heights were higher). There's no way that New Orleans could have avoided flooding with these parameters. The hurricane exceeded design conditions for the levee system. While some of the execution of that design indeed was faulty (not placing foundations deep enough, sinking foundations in too sandy a soil, etc), we have to take into account that the levee was designed in '65 by the Corps without the benefit of computer modeling, calculators, and advanced meteorology that we have available today. We also have to take into account the fact that this was one of the most powerful storms ever recorded in the Atlantic, and the sheer power of the hurricane guaranteed destruction of a great many things in its path. While apparently 2/3 of the flooding is estimated to be due to levee breaches, that leaves another 1/3 due to sheer force of nature, and part of that 2/3 may not have been preventable because with that powerful a storm, some of the levees were going to fail no matter how well built they were.

 

Flooding occured due to overtopping even of intact levees. The surge was higher than levee walls, and wave heights were even higher, so even if the levees had remained intact, flooding would have occurred. The Corps of Engineers did not anticipate a storm of this magnitude due to limitations in hurricane knowledge available in '65, so some of the levee failures occurred simply because the storm was too powerful for the original levee design. There's a limit to the things we can currently build that will withstand a cat 5 hurricane.

 

Asking for this ridiculous amount of money for something that was at least 1/3 in part due to force of nature and not negligence, misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance is just insane.

[Corinthian]

I vote we foot the bill off to Mother Nature. It's her fault.

[Totenkopf]

$3 quadrillion sounds about right for compensation? o_O

 

 

Perhaps at the collapse of the Wiemar Republic, but otherwise.. That suit is about as embarrassing as the administrative judge in DC that wanted multi millions over a pair of pants.

[Tommycat]

Hmmm when an evacuation order is given, and you ignore that order, somehow you should get 3quadrillion? I have a hard time justifying that figure no matter how you look at it.

 

Keep in mind that the area that was hit hardest by Katrina was actually Mississipi. There are towns there that simply don't exist anymore. That's where FEMA went first. NOLA was hit by the levee breaks after the storm had passed. Honestly, if FEMA had gone to NOLA and not Mississippi, we would have heard that Bush was just trying to protect his oil buddies.

 

Interestingly enough I heard from a relative of mine that lives down there that at least one of the breaks was at a spot where the upgraded levee was used instead of the old dirt mound levee. Of course I'm not sure about that. But it would be interesting if it were true.

[John Galt]

I'm going to start off by saying that I have family down there. My cousin in Gulf Port lost his house in Katrina. His big screen TV was on the lawn, and there was a yacht sticking out of his roof.

 

I think that the parties involved with building and maintaining the levees should be held responsible for damages incurred within flooded areas that the levees should've protected. Other than that I don't think that the government owes anyone down there a cent of taxpayer money. If they lost their house in the storm and didn't have it properly insured that's their problem, not the government's.

[Web Rider]

Hmmm when an evacuation order is given, and you ignore that order, somehow you should get 3quadrillion? I have a hard time justifying that figure no matter how you look at it.

An evacuation order given with only enough time for people to be on the roads instead of in their homes. Better solution? Not really. Massive traffic would likly have resulted in MORE deaths. Not to mention that many of the people most affected were/are poor and didn't have a means to leave anyway. In any case, their homes were still destroyed.

 

Keep in mind that the area that was hit hardest by Katrina was actually Mississipi. There are towns there that simply don't exist anymore. That's where FEMA went first. NOLA was hit by the levee breaks after the storm had passed. Honestly, if FEMA had gone to NOLA and not Mississippi, we would have heard that Bush was just trying to protect his oil buddies.

New Orleans and the greater Louisiana area are also well known for their oil production.

 

Interestingly enough I heard from a relative of mine that lives down there that at least one of the breaks was at a spot where the upgraded levee was used instead of the old dirt mound levee. Of course I'm not sure about that. But it would be interesting if it were true.

The simple fact is, nothing, be it a concrete wall or a dirt mound, is designed to withstand that kind of force, as somebody put forth the correct equations for the math of the force of the storm-wall, it's a scary big number. It's like wondering why your house of paper didn't survive the last fire.

[Tommycat]

An evacuation order given with only enough time for people to be on the roads instead of in their homes. Better solution? Not really. Massive traffic would likly have resulted in MORE deaths. Not to mention that many of the people most affected were/are poor and didn't have a means to leave anyway. In any case, their homes were still destroyed.

Not really true, but maybe somehow my friends and family got some kind of pre-evacuation order. The poor should have been handled by the state. A state of emergency was issued for the region. This released federal funds to help those that needed evacuation. Of course anyone who lives down in LA knows how well the state handles emergency funds... At any rate, they would have been better off in at least higher ground. You know like somewhere above sea level. Though I will agree they should have evacuated earlier. We took in a couple of the evacuees here in Phoenix, helped them get back on their feet, and they decided to stay in AZ. (Interestingly enough, it was in my house that carries flood insurance even here in the desert)

 

New Orleans and the greater Louisiana area are also well known for their oil production.

That was my point. If FEMA had been sent to protect NOLA, we would have heard that Bush was using FEMA to protect the interests of his oil buddies rather than helping the poor people of Mississippi who were hardest hit by the hurricane. There was no real win for FEMA and no way for Bush to be labeled as a good guy. Katrina was just another excuse for Bush's opponents to attack him. FEMA was mobilized early to get them to the areas where they would be needed and initially Mississippi was the place that needed the help the most. It was well after the storm that the levees broke. That required a second FEMA mobilization. It was theorized, but not recognized as a major threat. Sure in hind sight, it should have been, but when the levees didn't break right after the storm, we thought we dodged a bullet. Apparently it was a marking round..... Once the levees were established as an emergency, FEMA was mobilized as quickly as possible to be on site.

 

The simple fact is, nothing, be it a concrete wall or a dirt mound, is designed to withstand that kind of force, as somebody put forth the correct equations for the math of the force of the storm-wall, it's a scary big number. It's like wondering why your house of paper didn't survive the last fire.

Again, I think we're on the same page just reading differently and saying it back differently. Even if the levees had been completed to the new specs, the likelihood is that they still would have failed. A cat 5 hurricane is a beast. Levees could have been designed to withstand that, but not without requiring funds the state could not have provided. Levee funds were asked for in virtually every election cycle, and the people of NOLA voted them down(according to my family member living down there). Even the new structures planned were not designed for a cat 5. Virtually nothing is. Heck even the Hoover dam couldn't withstand a cat 5.

[Jae Onasi]

An evacuation order given with only enough time for people to be on the roads instead of in their homes. Better solution? Not really. Massive traffic would likly have resulted in MORE deaths. Not to mention that many of the people most affected were/are poor and didn't have a means to leave anyway. In any case, their homes were still destroyed.

.

Mayor Nagin ordered a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans on the 28th, about 24 hours prior to landfall. Part of the delay was due to the fact that on the 26th, the storm was still forecast to hit the Florida panhandle. There were certainly problems for people getting out of the city, but a lot of people were able to evacuate safely with that much notice. In fact, a lot of people had started evacuating voluntarily prior to that when the hurricane strengthened explosively to cat 5 early on the 26th.

[Cygnus Q'ol]

We live on a planet where natural disasters occur every day, somewhere.

There's not much we can do about that. A tornado swept past our town about a week ago. It missed my town, but a town not too far away was leveled. Some people lost everything they ever had. Quakes and storms and fires run unchecked by mankind.

 

I have always thought that our country was one of the best at helping and healing once something major had occurred, and I still believe we are.

 

There are Americans in every corner of the world helping those wrought by disaster. My pride is with them.

 

The deaths that are a direct result of the misfire in Washington and the communication breakdown between Feds and State are the ones I'm concerned about.

 

Where's the accountability?

[RobQel-Droma]

Argh, my toilet just got plugged.

 

Darn it, Bath & Toilet! Where's my 5 billion dollars! Maybe if we weren't in Iraq, the National Guard could have been there to unplug it....