Asteroid Hurtles Toward Earth, Bush to Blame!
Posted by John Hudock
Common Sense and Wonder
Times Watch has a very interesting history of the NYT's changing views on flood control. Apparently when they can't flog the administration they seem to be opposed to increased flood control measures.
<<<
Hurricane Katrina is a natural disaster unparalleled in modern times, leaving at least half of a major city underwater. In this national tragedy, the nation's paper of record rises to the occasion by declaring everything Bush's fault. But perhaps some blame could be more plausibly apportioned to the Times' own editorial page.
Thursday's lead editorial, "Waiting for a Leader," pretends to be focused on the here-and-now while actually looking ahead to blame Bush: "While our attention must now be on the Gulf Coast's most immediate needs, the nation will soon ask why New Orleans's levees remained so inadequate. Publications from the local newspaper to National Geographic have fulminated about the bad state of flood protection in this beloved city, which is below sea level. Why were developers permitted to destroy wetlands and barrier islands that could have held back the hurricane's surge? Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?"
Perhaps they were reading old Times editorials on flood control. As the EU Rota blog notes, the Times editorial page has often criticized such efforts.
EU Rota excerpts an editorial from July 14, 1993, after Midwest flooding:
"For the longer term, Washington and flood-prone areas
must reconsider the pro's and con's of flood control
projects and flood insurance. The billions of Federal
dollars spent to construct dams and levees have doubtless
prevented billions of dollars of damage to the areas they
serve. But a dam or a levee in one place creates problems
somewhere else. Also, by offering protection, they
encourage people to live and work and develop farming in
flood plains that are inherently risky. Budget
constraints and environmental concerns have slowed new
flood control projects in recent years. Congress should
resist pressure to spend more now because of this year's
floods; these projects need closer evaluation than
they've gotten in the past….Flood plains are risky
territory, as the Mississippi and its tributaries are
proving again. Federal policy needs to control the risk,
not just the rivers."
From May 9, 1997, in the aftermath of flooding in North Dakota, the Times praised a liberal Republican for making flood control projects more expensive and harder to manage:
"In the last session of Congress, a small band of
Republican moderates organized by Representative Sherwood
Boehlert of New York succeeded in blocking nearly every
attempt by their right-wing colleagues to gut the
country's basic environmental statutes. Fortunately, Mr.
Boehlert and his friends are still wide awake. On
Wednesday, in the first major environmental battle of the
new Congress, the moderates and like-minded Democrats
beat back a bill that would have permanently exempted any
flood control project from the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act."
Read the rest here.
timeswatch.org
(hat tip: Eternity Road)
eternityroad.info
_and_the_deep_blue_sea_or_new_orleans_and_the_new_york_times/
commonsensewonder.com |
