Your Thoughts on the Great Ozone Debate? 719
Hrodvitnir asks: "Yesterday the BBC reported that the hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic is the largest on record. Today CNN says that it is recovering, or at least stabilized. Do we really know what's going on? Is this more bad science/false studies, or are they both partially right?"
Easy (Score:3, Insightful)
not all sure... (Score:2, Insightful)
no one has a clue (Score:3, Insightful)
neither side have any idea what is going on with the earth.
the earth will be fine, now and long after humans are wiped from the planet. are we speeding up that process? maybe, maybe not.
It's not news if it isn't sensational (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need are better educated reporters. And a better educated public. But I'm not holding my breath for that, no matter how polluted the air is.
Assume the worst case scenario (Score:3, Insightful)
RTFA (closely) (Score:5, Insightful)
"There have been signs over the last two years that damage to the ozone layer has reduced, but a full recovery is not expected until around 2050."
Sounds like the same thing CNN is saying to me.
Easy...... (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientists measuring the ozone layer have only been here for about 30 years.
Real measurement for 30 years verses millions of years of unknown history.
Extrapolation is easy if you really don't care.
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:5, Insightful)
political agenda (Score:5, Insightful)
Go look at some stories on democratic underground and you will see stories saying that Bush was responsible for hurricanes because of global warrming and a ton of "scientists" backing that. Look on michael moore.com and cindy sheehan has a post about jews who took soldiers away for war in iraq and not being here to stop the looting ( hello posse comitatus) in New Orleans.
My point, "News" is basically the blog of some reporter with about as much factual basis behind it. (See jason blair)
Being used to push an agenda (Score:3, Insightful)
This is America, we don't care (Score:1, Insightful)
There is no "partially right" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
You've got several problems with that.
1) Turner is notably liberal and, if you are right with your stereotypical thinking, would be more likely to report damage to the environment than that it's getting better, but CNN is reporting the opposite.
2) It seems you didn't RTFA, at least the CNN article. Note that it cites a NOAA report.
There have been many reports, even discussed and linked to on here, about how scientists in the Bush administration are constantly forced to alter reports to fit the views of the administration. Since this administration says everything is okay, there is no need to worry, it is only expected to see a report issued from a branch of the US gov. to agree with that statement.
Re:no one has a clue (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, we do. The chemical reactions that result in CFCs depleting ozone are well understood. If you didn't sleep through freshman chemistry, you probably learned about that, acid rain, the greenhouse effect, etc. It's all perfectly valid science.
If you want to debate global warming, that's a separate issue. There is no doubt that humans have done significant damage to the ozone layer.
Very important (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, America has lost responsibility in the press. It used to be about finding and reporting facts. Now it is about finding both sides to argue so as to make more money printing the same things over and over. In the end, whether or not global warming is happening or not, it makes sense that if there are things we suspect that are screwing the Earth up, we should take care of it. Americans are used to suing when you do something stupid and want to get out of it. There is no one to sue or a way to get a new Earth.
No contradiction, just spin (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, there is a 26-month cycle for equatorial winds that affects the size of the Antarctic hole, so there's a quasi-biennial cycle to the ozone layer hole.
So, the only question is, how do you want to spin it?
The hole is still getting bigger. We need to step up pollution controls. Or
Nothing to see here, the hole is stabilizing at it's current size and we expect it to go back to normal within 50 years, so our current ozone-depleting-compound-pollution policies are fine.
Are we doing the best we can in re: O3 layer? No.
Do we need to do better? I dunno, and apparently, neither does anyone else.
I'm not exactly sure what the article submitter (Score:4, Insightful)
The submitter seems to be trying to say that the BBC and CNN articles contradict one another. However, this isn't the case at all. The BBC article is talking about the size of this year's hole; CNN seems to be talking about the size of the hole in a more general over-years sense. CNN is saying that the ozone hole is levelling off in a long-term sense; the BBC is talking about year-to-year fluctuations. The BBC itself even says: There have been signs over the last two years that damage to the ozone layer has reduced, but a full recovery is not expected until around 2050, seeming to support the CNN article.
Moreover, the article submission is misleading. The submission says the 2005 is the largest on record. The BBC says the 2005 hole is one of the largest on record. The BBC itself says: They show that the Antarctic ozone hole was larger in mid-August this year than at the same period in any year since 2000. The 2000 ozone hole was still larger than this year's hole!
CFCs take a certain amount of time to fall out of the atmosphere, and the damage they cause lasts a certain amount of time beyond that. There is no sign in the news here that the Montreal protocol is anything but working; we're jolting back and forth within a certain area but at least the ozone hole is no longer getting worse constantly.
People dont agree (Score:2, Insightful)
Who do you trust? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just Follow The Money. (Score:1, Insightful)
Thus, the same researchers who were once yelling about 'global cooling' are now yelling about 'global warming.' Why? Because that's where the money is these days.
Keep this in mind when the next 'environmental crisis' hits the headlines.
Re:It's not news if it isn't sensational (Score:2, Insightful)
Furthermore, I hear a lot of people pointing at hurricanes lately as a result of global warming who don't even understand how a hurricane is formed. Warmer ocean water and cooler air. The claim with global warming is that the air is getting warmer. You can't have it both ways. You can't point at every natural disaster and blame it on global warming, it's nonsense, you will find more and more people start blaming weather phenomena around the world on America.
No, we don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do we really know what's going on?
No.
There, that was easy. Now, as I read somewhere around here the other day, science is not truth nor is it fact. It's a method that attempts to discern both of those things. It's a good method and as time goes on the results of our discoveries show in the things we build and the advancement of our society. So before I continue, I'm not anti-science and have no desire to be branded as some sort of Bible thumper. (Which seems to be the title given to anyone who dares question the perfection of our holy scientists.)
The problem is that humans (whether religious zealots or scientific zealots) rarely want to admit they're on the path to truth. They want to say they've found it, they know what it is and that's all she wrote. No one wants to say that they're trying when they can say that they're successful and make a really big deal out of it. For instance:
People who defend sensational scientific beliefs are just as contradictory as religious nuts. When they're talking about evolution they point to the fact that the changes and cycles take thousands and thousands of years. Geological changes? Even longer. Nature, as a whole moves in very slow patterns and makes very slow changes. It's not in a hurry. However, suddenly we analyse weather for what... 100 years? 200 years? We pluck out a pinhole sized chunk of a 4,000,000,000 year old pie and think that it really tells us anything that's truly long term?
I really love George Carlin's routine on the environment. He make a single statement that really brings it all into focus. Are humans so arrogant that we think we can destory the earth let alone save it?
I have a pretty simple policy on whether or not I believe a particular scientific theory/"discovery" and it works like this: If a "discovery" is made that yields cool new gadgets that improve my quality of life (TV, computers, polyester, bath puffs) then I believe it. If a "discovery" is heavily debated and spends a lot of time coming out of the mouths of the far left and/or the far right, I can usually ignore it and move on with my life. Politically pushed and motivated science is the worst kind. In an ironic twist, science should be scientifically motivated.
Stop telling me we know how everything works or that our methods are perfect and all that's left is time and discovery. In 250 years they're going to poke as much fun at what we know now as we do the science of 1750. Our medicine will be viewed as barbaric and primitive and our ideas on things like quantum physics will be viewed as remedial at best. In fact, with the speed discoveries are made now, the gap may be even bigger in 250 years. Again, this doesn't mean everything we know is bogus, it just means you shouldn't treat it like the be all end all.
Use science as a guide and use it to the best of your abilities. However, putting the level of faith in sensational theories that fundamentalists put in a literal 7 day (24 hours a day) creation of the world really isn't any better.
Scientifically, we're moving in the right direction. We're doing our best. However, deal with the fact that a lot of so-called "science" is politically motivated bullshit. Also deal with the fact that some things that we hold dear now are going to be discarded as we learn more about the universe and its laws and mechanics. With the exception of spotting a huge space object heading for the planet, doomsday science can be summarily ignored.
Re:Easy...... (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientists measuring the ozone layer have only been here for about 30 years.
Real measurement for 30 years verses millions of years of unknown history.
Hmm...now if only we had some sort of material that could trap gasses at the poles and would accrete at a predictable pace hence saving samples of historical atmosphere. Possibly something that starts as a liquid but ends up as a solid?
Re:Easy...... (Score:3, Insightful)
To be even more specific to this study it's important for casual observers to understand that this data has only been collected since 1995. It's much sexier in a news report to say that, "This is one of the largest ozone holes in the past decade". That sells papers, gets people to pay attention to your news broadcast etc... It's less provocative to say that since 1995 only two other measured ozone holes have exceeded the size of the one measured today (1996 and 2000, which oddly enough is conflicting information with the BBC report but I find the European Space Agency a little more reliable than the BBC personally).
I think it's important for people to understand that the ozone hole flutuates in size, we have no data on how big it's supposed to be and while 1996 and 2000 ozone holes were the largest we've measured, they could be significantly smaller (or larger) than those same holes 30 years ago. There's simply not enough data to make any kind of conclusion and scientists that reach such conclusions are simply pandering for their next government grant rather than delivering accurate evaluations in my opinion.
http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEM712A5QCE_environment_0 .html [esa.int]
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Especially when critical studies that form the basis of global warming theory [junkscience.com] so poorly documented and have undergone no genuinely critical peer review. [junkscience.com] Our founding documents and main research on global climate change contain cherry-picked data series to produce the desired results to "prove" that global warming is a result of automobile emissions. Secondary research to confirm the original research was done with similarly cherry-picked series and is even less well-documented data series. When we can't even go back and review the physical evidence used by our researchers because they have misplaced or just "don't remember" where they gathered their data, any intelligent and appropriately skeptical scientific-thinking person ought to call for more and better research before advocating sweeping policies that will cost the world economies an amount of money so large as to be nearly uncountable.
Re:Easy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Idiotic (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:2, Insightful)
It's like measuring the water level in a bay over a two minute period, and assuming that the water level change when the tide comes in is a disaster caused by SUV drivers. Same thing for "global warming".
It's bad science. They are taking their cause, and trying to assign whatever "disasters" thay can find. If the ozone thing doesn't pan out, they will just move on to something else.
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
"determination of how much ozone was in Antarctica's atmosphere prior to the industrial revolution"
CO2 does not destroy ozone. CFCs destroy ozone. They were not developed until 1928, and didn't become widespread until the 1960s. You're confusing ozone studies with temperature and CO2-level studies.
Re:No, we don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
While I largely agree with most the rest of yrou post, I have to point out that evolution does not need thousands of years. You can observe it's action in 3-7 generations. You don't need a thousand years unless yoru species reproduces very slowly and lives 150 or more years.
Scientifically, we're moving in the right direction. We're doing our best. However, deal with the fact that a lot of so-called "science" is politically motivated bullshit. Also deal with the fact that some things that we hold dear now are going to be discarded as we learn more about the universe and its laws and mechanics. With the exception of spotting a huge space object heading for the planet, doomsday science can be summarily ignored.
Unfortunately it can't all be ignored. While it is a small sample and the information is very localized in the time spectrum... it's all we got, we have to make the best decisions we can with what is available. If it happens to be well supported but wrong, we waste a few billion dollars and some things improve when they didn't have to. If it is right, we're fucked. Given those two options I say take moderate steps in the direction that is supported instead of ignoring it because we lack sufficient datapoints. Find out what is generally supported and make a reasonable pollicy accordingly.
Re:political agenda (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't think I want to touch most of your rant with a ten foot pole but I think your logic failed on this one.
A rather large percentage of the "soldiers" in Iraq are National Guardsmen. They AREN'T restricted by posse comitatus from domestic enforcement, in fact they are SUPPOSED to respond to and police disasters. Thats what they were for.
In the specific disaster states around 1/3 to 1/4 of their guard are in Iraq so weren't available for call up to help with the disaster. Guard in neighboring states are also somewhat stretched and not as available as they would have been were it not for Iraq. The Guard Military Police are in especially high demand in Iraq and those are exactly the same people who should be patrolling the streets of New Orleans now.
Why are they in Iraq? Because the Bush administration didn't have enough boots to put on the ground in the quagmire and optional war that is Iraq and they didn't want to commit political suicide by starting a draft so they completely twisted the role of the National Guard to everyone's demise. The Guard is to there to play the military role domestically and to extend the military abroad in national emergency, not to prop up a completely optional war for a decade because the Republican's cant face the obvious that they need to either end Iraq or start a draft.
The use of the Guard should, for example, be compared between the wars in Iraq and Vietnam. During Vietnam the U.S. had the draft so the Guard turned in to the place were all the well connected white boys served to avoid getting drafted and combat. The Guard for the most part wasn't sent to war in Vietnam. This is why the Bush family pulled some major string to get George W. in to the Texas Air National Guard or Air National Country Club as it was known. The government at great expense trained him to be a glamorous fighter pilot but he had zero chance of seeing combat because he was trained in an obsolete jet, and it appears he barely fulfilled the minimal weekend warrior duties he had.
By contrast the volunteer Guardsmen of today have seen their volunteer service turned in to a quick ticket to multiple year long combat tours in Iraq, with significant casualties, no end in sight, with their family lives and careers ruined, and with much interference in their domestic role for disaster relief in particular.
And I wont even start on the study out last year on the crumbling levies in New Orleans which indicated that the money to repair the levies had been redirected to Homeland security and the war in Iraq by the Bush administration. Scratch one city due to Bush administration incompetence and failure to do "A stitch in time".
Re:not THAT unusual (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, most CO2 emitted by human activities comes from burning fuels. However, I assume you mean forest fires. Those do not affect net CO2 levels over the long term because the carbon in forests had been pulled out of the air within the last few decades. That's not the case for fossil fuels.
Volcanoes?
Despite the popular urban legend that claims otherwise, volcanoes account for about 1% as much CO2 as human activities. Look it up.
of Animals breathing? Decaying animals and plants?
All of the carbon from those sources has been pulled from the air via photosynthesis in the past few years, so no net increase in CO2.
Does factory-created CO2 have a different composition that that made from fires?
Not a different composition from forest fires, but a different source of carbon as explained above.
Hey, guess what, that means they aren't burning coal or wood fires.
Far more coal is being burned per capita to generate electricity than was burned prior to the industrial revolution. As explained above, burning wood has no net effect on CO2 levels beyond the short term.
All carbon released from burning or decaying plant material will generally be recaptured by the next plant that grows to replace the previous one. There is no corresponding mechanism to recapture excess carbon released from fossil fuels. (Other than the process that got the fossil fuels there in the first place: gradual deposit of dead organisms into sedimentary rocks. That's a painfully slow process that is totally overwhelmed by our current rate of release.)
In summary, you really have no clue about how the carbon cycle works.
Goddamn Chinese (Score:3, Insightful)
> it put US manufactures at a disadvantage versus
> ones in China (and India, but less of a
> consideration), because of different environmental
> requirements. You must have a level playing field
> to compete, and the US rejected Kyoto's attempt to
> create a system that favoured China.
Hm.
The Chinese emit 2.3 Tons of CO2 per capita per year
Americans emit 20.1 Tons of CO2 per capita per year.
Clearly any idiot can see that the Chinese are the problem.
Re:No, we don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, suddenly we analyse weather for what... 100 years? 200 years?
Several tens of thousands, thanks to ice core samples. It's possible to gather data on events that happened before recorded history. It may not be perfectly accurate, but it's better than nothing. And even in our lifetime, we've altered the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Models based on past climate changes have been horrible at predicting future climate changes, but that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and make no decisions whatsoever, or that we're inevitably safe.
Whether or not there's a political debate around a scientific assertion should be irrelevant to the weight of validity that you assign to it. For example, the insurance industustries try to play down the health risks of mold so they don't have to cover mold-ridden houses (which would be incredibly expensive.) But talk to any microbiologist and they'll tell you just what mold can do to you.
Politics is a pretty poor barometer of the truth or falsity of an assertion, I agree. We need to make our decisions based on evidence rather than political ideology. But while politics shouldn't be involved in sciences science should be involved in politics. Or should we just go with our gut feelings?
Will our medicine be considered primitive in the future? I'm sure. Honestly, who said otherwise?
I, for one, would like to see rapid identification of bacterial infections and greater reliance on bacteriophage (viruses which kill bacteria) so that normal intestinal flora are not destroyed. This would allow treating people with only mildly harmful infections, since the side effects of treatment (potential fungal overgrowth, C. Difficile infection, etc.) would not be as bad.
Our techniques for rapidly and cheaply diagnosing pathogens right now are piss poor, and as they improve we'll be able to give very specific, effective treatments with fewer side effects.
Even our legal system could be making better utilization of science. All people have certain mostly benign viruses in them, which are often sexually transmitted. If a court case came up where one person claimed they were raped and another denied doing it, sexual involvement could be demonstrated by showing the two people had a similar set of viruses in their body. Mutation rates of the more steady portions of the virus might be useful for determining the relative date of the event (good for divorce trials, too.)
Of course, more than one virus would have to be used.
Stop telling me we know how everything works or that our methods are perfect and all that's left is time and discovery. In 250 years they're going to poke as much fun at what we know now as we do the science of 1750.
Who, exactly, has been telling you that they know how everything works?
With the exception of spotting a huge space object heading for the planet, doomsday science can be summarily ignored.
So the harm attributed to pesticide usage, lead in the water pipes and in face paint, poor food quality standards, and sexual pandemics... these are just phantoms of our imagination? I'm sure you can think of more.
Sometimes science does identify real threats. And it requires a political movement to get the law to recognize those threats.
The thing is, no matter how little information we have, we still have to make decisions based on that information or else confusion and indecision will paralyze us, socially, scientifically, and politically.
Re:What I've always wondered (the answer) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There is no "partially right" (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, who cares? Global warming is baaaad for us and we should do everything in our power to maintain the status quo temperatures, right?
they are all wrong (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:CFC is too heavy (Score:4, Insightful)
Just out of curiosity, has anyone bothered to compare the atomic weight of CFC's to say, general atmoshpere of comparitive volume (espcially of the higher O3 areas?). Seems to me it would be mighty diffucult for the CFC's to traverse up that high due to their weight.
The atmosphere is turbulently mixed up to 80 km. This is fortunate, because otherwise the nitrogen would sink below the oxygen and we couldn't breathe.
see this lecture [millersville.edu] for example. The relevant part is at the end.
Oh, wait a sec! They also only collect AT THE SOUTH POLE. Must like it cold or something.
No, the atmosphere is well-mixed, remember? They only catalyze ozone breakdowns at extremely cold temperatures.
One ought to do some research on the effects of CFC with Ozone (O3).
yes, perhaps one could win a Nobel Prize [nobelprize.org] or something.
[usual paranoid rants about DuPont elided. Let's stipulate that DuPont wanted to make money.]
I agree with an above post. Dissenting voices cause society to label one as a "nutcase" or "extremist" Isn't science all about finding logical explanations to the world around us? I say, follow the money trail, and you'll find who concocted the stories of global warming, global cooling, ozone holes.
Err, yes, I agree. Follow the money is right. I think it might be the case that the tiny little energy corporations are trembling under the onslaught of misinformation from the hugely financed scientific professional organizations and NGOs. But it might be the other way around.
Re:Biggest determinant of ozone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Technology got us into this (Score:5, Insightful)
If we want to speed up this process, we need to remove CFCs from the stratosphere. I doubt this is feasible, especially without serious side effects.
Pick your errors... (Score:4, Insightful)
- you can fail to find something that's really there, and suffer from its effect,
- or you can find something that's not there, and suffer from spending time/effort/money/angst/blather on it needlessly.
In this instance, we'll could miss figuring out the ozone and suffer the consequences. If that happens, we'll need to make more ozone.
Or we could be wrong about the perceived ozone problem. If that happens. we'll need to make more time/effort/money/angst/blather.
I'm guessing it's going to be easier to come up with replacements for time/effort/money/angst/blather than it will be to order up some replacement ozone.
That's based on our existing experience with replacing resources. This year, between the tsunami and Katrina, we'll be seeing what happens when entire cities, including a modern first-world one, have to be brought back to functioning literally stick by stick, brick by brick.
Re:CNN: thanks to Ted Turner. (Score:3, Insightful)
Fact is America is moving to the right or at least the right has conned everyone in to think it is. CNN has been getting killed by Fox in cable news ratings so they had two options, try to be completely unlike Fox and try to find an audience or try to be like Fox. Unfortunately they chose the later leading to a situation in which, rather than there being a liberal bias in the American media, like the right likes to rant there is, in fact American news has a growing right wing bias, at least in cable news. Further evidence is all the cheerleading cable news did before and during the war in Iraq, though some are coming to regret the extent to which they were suckered.
A school of thought is liberals aren't getting much of their news from TV and radio any more, and are turning to the Internet more. Right wingers have latched on en mass to right wing talk radio and Fox news, which reinforce their world view instead of challenge it, and its driven their ratings through the roof making it more profitable radio and TV to do more right wing bias. Its created a situation where Americans are increasingly bombarded with right biased news and its most likely pushing American further and faster to the right. It could well be an out of control snowballing that could result in the U.S. being a very far right country in the not so distant future unless a disaster happens that puts Americans off the on the right, like a war in Iraq that goes bad, $6 gasoline, or a hurricane in the South that the Bush administration completely fails to deal with and which results in mass casualties due purely to slow response. You have to wonder if the Bush administration would have acted more swiftly if the people suffering in the South were affluent, white Republicans instead of poor, black Democrats.
Re:CNN: thanks to Ted Turner. (Score:2, Insightful)
How can you say they completely failed to deal with the situation when first of all they didn't even know where the hurricane was going to hit until a day prior. New Orleans has a 72hour evacuation plan. Oops. Secondly Bush declared the storm a castastrophy BEFORE the storm hit in order to be able to start aid preparations beforehand. Next you have to ignore headlines such as...
CONGRESS TO RECONVENE;
BUSH ADMIN TO SEEK $10 BILLION AID INSTALLMENT...
'HEALTH EMERGENCY' DECLARED...
LEVEE REPAIRS UNDERWAY...
BUSH: DON'T BUY GAS IF YOU DON'T NEED IT
More Navy Ships Headed to the Gulf Coast...
Spy satellites aid Hurricane Katrina recovery...
to be able to say they aren't making any effort. They are also trying to get Carnival cruise lines to use their ships to take on people. The National Guard is also on the way to help restore order. Don't go making everything a race issue when it clearly is not. Half of the delays in getting people to safer land from the shelters is because they have to fish morons off of rooftops or stay out of the air because people on the ground are firing at the helicopters or firing on medical convoys http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.clickability.com/p
Re:CNN: thanks to Ted Turner. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think I'm actually representative of all of Slashdot.... Most of the time I'm pretty Libertarian so from where I sit that wasn't really a leftist post, it was an anti stupid government post
"I'm sure the relief effort could have been better and faster."
Well following your logic it doesn't matter what kind of job they do. They just have to do something and people like you will say could have been better, could have been worse.
Fact is disaster relief is a fine art. This team failed Disaster 101. First priority right after search and rescue is getting safe drinking water to the victims. Going 4 days without doing that is complete incompetence. They are to busy holding press conferences telling us what they are gonna do some day when they should have just been getting the job done.
"Blaming the administration for the failure is absurd."
The administration is 100% responsible for disaster management once a place is declared a Federal disaster area and they are called in which I believe they were before Katrina even hit. State and local governments have a big role but in a disaster of this scale its entirely FEMA's job to make things right. They get billions of dollars every year just for that purpose. The have the power to mobilize the entire nation to solve the problem They are an executive branch agency and their chief usually reports directly to the President. The President sat in on the pre Hurricane planning videocons from Crawford, I saw him on the big screen.
You might not like pinning this on him, but it amazes me how Bush fan boys like yourself refuse to hold him accountable for ANYTHING. If Clinton had done the same crap you would probably be screaming bloody murder now instead, while I would be ripping up Clinton for his stupidity just the same as Bush. It isn't politics its incompetence.
" I agree with the reply saying that the local and state taxes should be paying for it. "
Well chances are you are wrong because unless a levee is owned by a city or state its not their responsibility. The lion's share of those levees are built and owned by the Army Corp of Engineers. If that was the case here which I'm pretty sure it is, then they are ultimately the responsibility of the Commander in Chief. In this case, unlike Truman, the sign on this one's desk says:
"Keep that buck away from me cuz it ain't stoppin here".
"Trucks don't instantly appear where you want them."
You can drive a truck across the entire country in less than 4 days. Maybe someone should have called up Walmart in Arkansas. They could have had about 2000 trucks full of food and water there in under 24 hours.
You are just being a pathetic apologist. If there is anything sickening around here its that.
"You don't like the war, you think the arab nations should stay totalitarian terrorists who hate the US:
Nope in keeping with my mostly conservative and libertarian tendencies I think we should be taking care of business at home and spending our $300 billion at home instead of playing musical chairs in places that didn't like Americans before and totally hate them now.