Assumption of the Risk- Living in New Orleans.

Sun, 08/31/2008 - 11:56am
By: Richard Hobbs

Albert Einstein once said, that the definition of insanity, is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

In civil litigation, when a suit is brought against a defendant for some type of harm, often the defendant can raise the defense that the Plaintiff "assumed" the risk and is prevented from making any type of recovery since they knew of the inherent dangers associated with that behavior.

Living in New Orleans is assuming the risk of Hurricanes. Living in New Orleans and taking billions and billions of dollars from people who live in relatively safe areas to accomadate the dangerous conditions of New Orleans is Insanity.

Three years ago, the people rose up and accused Bush of not liking "black people." So the entire debate about New Orleans never reached the precipice of the truth, which many Republicans tried to discuss, including our own Lynn Westmoreland.

So, instead of openly discussing the truth about New Orleans' placement in a flood zone, and resting below sea level, we were told to ingore the truth, and to pump money into it.

Well we did.

Just like Obama is the Affirmative Action Presidential candidate, New Orleans is the Affirmative Action, special needs city, that drains us of our money and our common sence.

login to post comments | previous forum topic | next forum topic

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by jackyldo on Sun, 08/31/2008 - 5:47pm.

of New Orleans - New Orleans (known to the natives as Bayouk Choupique) and later Bayou St. John was a cross roads and a trading post. It was a portage area from the Mississippi to Lake Ponchatrain.

New Orleans was settled by the French trappers in the 1690's and called Port Bayou St. Jean. A settlement was established there in 1701 pre dating the city.

New Orleans was founded in 1718 by the French as Nouvelle-Orléans, under the direction of Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville. The site was selected because it was a rare bit of natural high ground along the flood-prone banks of the lower Mississippi.

In 1722 it replaced Biloxi as the Capital of French Louisiana and later that year In September, a hurricane struck the city, blowing most of the structures down.

After this, the administrators enforced the grid pattern dictated by Bienville but hitherto mostly ignored by the colonists. This grid is still seen today in the streets of the city's "French Quarter"

So we have a 300 year old city, that is in the area of great distress during the times of storms and subsequent storm surge.

The people of New Orleans love their city and assume this risk, keeping a dynamic city fresh and functioning, for all of us to visit and enjoy.

You seem to feel the city should be moved? By that standard should we move Miami? For it only missed Andrew in 1992 by 60 or so miles.
Maybe Charleston ? Wait those cities are at or just above sea level so they are not "AS" risky ..

But maybe we should warn the DUTCH ,, most of their country including all of it reclaimed from the sea lies 2-12 feet below sea level. They get great storms and storm surges.. oh they build and maintain dikes and levees and pumps and they believe that is the role of Government TO PROVIDE FOR A COMMON GOOD.

What drains our money Mr. Hobbs is not "affirmative action", or Barak Obama or a "special needs city" it is a pointless war in an country which has drained more than 1 trillion dollars from our treasury and continues to drain billions every week.

Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Mon, 09/01/2008 - 10:23am.

will be decided when local and state officials determine that the situation is no longer financially tenable.
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

NUK_1's picture
Submitted by NUK_1 on Mon, 09/01/2008 - 9:06am.

The people of New Orleans love their city and assume this risk, keeping a dynamic city fresh and functioning, for all of us to visit and enjoy.

Assuming the risk would mean getting insurance and paying for rebuilding from the carnage left afterwards. That's not by and large New Orleans residents at all. They feel they have a right to live wherever they want and the Fed Gov has the obligation to support them financially.

I'm from New Orleans and calling the city "fresh and functioning" at any point in the last few decades is a total joke. Part of the big appeal tourists used to flock to the Big Easy for was how unfresh and dysfunctional it was, except large crowd control, the #1 thing that the city can do better than about anyone else. New Orleans is the co-inventor of corrupt politics along with Chicago, though Chicago functioned a lot better than New Orleans has. The city also has boasted for decades the most corrupt police department in the entire country. Add to that oppressive humidity, rampant crime, terrible public schools, some of the stupidest inbreds in existence, staring out at levees above your frickin' head and it doesn't take a genius to realize New Orleans was a "visit only" destination. That's all before Katrina ever caused the first raindrop. Then Katrina came along and the inevitable was realized and what's left is in extreme danger of the being destroyed.

There isn't a "common good" in trying to maintain the unmaintainable in New Orleans. The Dutch have no choice about the land they live on unless they want to invade another country above sea level. New Orleans isn't a sovereign country. It's state in a large country that offers other places to live. Its people can MOVE. They need to be told that the technological advances in levee-building will never be greater than the power of Mother Nature. MOVE fools!

A strong argument can be made that the "common good" says never rebuild NO again and people don't live there. There is probably an argument that can be made it's for the "common good" to have forced abortions and sterilization of some people. I don't know if anyone really wants to go the route of what the "common good" entails.

Submitted by USArmybrat on Mon, 09/01/2008 - 9:30am.

I've been there before and after Katrina, also, and "fresh and functioning" isn't exactly the description I would use, either. There are always going to be people that stay there no matter what and expect help in rebuilding, every time. I wish the government would realize that, before they start throwing millions at that city again!

Submitted by Nitpickers on Sun, 08/31/2008 - 4:05pm.

When 30,000 people get into trouble with a mass evacuation out of about 500,000, there is not a major city in the country who would't have similar numbers! Even if they weren't surrounded by water.

Poor, ignorant, lack of funds to escape, sick, crippled, boss won't let them leave for fear of firing, and on and on----add up quickly to the 6% who don't make it out on their own!

What you and others don't care to understand is that such people exist, for whatever reason you want to give it, and we are on this earth such a short time that we could do worse than helping them a little, at least!

Hell, there is too much pollution here in Atlanta, causing many of us to use up doctor's and hospitals' time treating us for allergies and such, should we just move out to North Dakota?

The place could have been fixed years ago if we had wanted to do it right--we didn't!

Maybe you want Ted Stevens to have his Alaskan bridge "to nowhere."

At one time slaves were criticized for their attitudes since they were being "housed and fed" for practically nothing. That didn't work did it?

We are still paying for that error!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.