These are pictures from a guy, at another forum I hang out in, took. He is working down in New Orleans. He is down their repairing their telephone network such as rebuilding the communication towers. In this one you can see how high the water was by noticing the brown lines on the house, like what happens when you drop some coffee on the counter and let it dry, it leaves that brown ring. http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img00445hi.jpg http://img203.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img00584dl.jpg http://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img00415wm.jpg And this last picture deserves picture of the week or something. They say rebuilding the whole area devestated by both hurricanes will take decades, but of course the major, important neccesities will be restored within a few months. I doubt most of the people will move back into their homes, which are soaked with mold, toxins, freon, diseases, etc.
I would say that showing pictures of dead bodies is not only inappropriate, but disrespectful. I went through a flood in my apartment a couple of years ago, but I cannot imagine going through that...
we had the same problem here in germany in the city dresden some years ago but it wasnt such a big desaster like in new orleans since theres no hurricans here only much much rain it will cost years to get back to normality i wish you all luck
5 years ago there was a storm that ravaged Denmark and Germany, and that storm did some serious shit, but it was nothing compared to the horrible hurricane Rita.....
You can't candy coat it. Showing all the dead will make people realize the actual consequences. Mind you in a proper way, from distance, or in such a way that is designed to show the human loss, not in a gratuitous way. Without all the pictures from the gulf war and vietnam, would we realize the price paid when men make war?
An interesting point was raised in a letter to this week's New Scientist: 'Ivan and Katrina from Graham Noble Your article mentions that hurricane Ivan "veered from its original New Orleans-bound course last year" but it doesn't mention where it "veered" to (10 September, page 8). In fact it struck Cuba, with at least as much devastating force as Katrina struck Louisiana. But this went largely unreported in our media, possibly because the much-maligned government of Cuba had taken the trouble to prepare for this predictable event, rather than relying on luck and charity. Nearly 2 million people were evacuated from the path of the storm, in a systematic and orderly fashion, and not one Cuban was killed. It's not exactly rocket science.' While it's worded [significantly] more strongly than I would have, should someone not be looking at why the US government did virtually nothing until the storm was right on top of them? It's all very well warning people and allowing them to make their own choice to leave, but if they actually declared martial law, say, 5 days before it made landfall and forced everyone to leave I very much doubt the death toll would have been anywhere near as significant. So, if they knew it was going to happen why didn't they do anything? Dumping everyone in the Superbowl didn't exactly work out fantastically, either. Why isn't somebody being held accountable for all the preventable loss of life?
Honestly, I didn't think Katrina would do what it did until it hit NO. The media certainly didn't make that big of a deal about the hurricane until struck too, unlike what they did with Rita and the other hurricane before Katrina. As for who's responsible? The government, the whole lot of them.
I thought this was a good read on the hurricanes. http://jewishworldreview.com/0905/graham092805.php3
