On Pushing The Envelope, Or, Let’s Meet The Neighbors

Over the past week or so, we’ve discussed the likelihood that the “who’s getting nominated” question will not be decided for a few months yet.

We assume that, at least through summer (“you don’t introduce new products in August”), D candidates will concentrate on reinforcing the D message generically, while fundraising for their own causes. We assume the real dog-eat-dog “pick me, not them” part of the battle waits till Labor Day and beyond.

Our little blogging community has also seen a couple of recent examples of the power of shared effort. Our muscles are being flexed, and it feels pretty good.

We have an entire summer ahead of us, and potential power to direct.

So I have a suggestion: why don’t we spend some time over the next few months, each of us, personally, visiting the internet towns and villages where Rs gather. Let’s politely introduce ourselves, let’s respectfully address issues of concern, where we find them; and let’s start the process of reminding purple voters we find there that reason, common sense, and good government are more likely to be achieved by choosing a D candidate over any likely R candidate.

To put it another way, rather than waiting for our candidates to begin rustling up votes for the D side, let’s do it ourselves.

This may not be as impossible an idea as you might think. There is a huge sense of Republican concern that the Party does not have what it takes to win in ’08, and this is our chance to take advantage of it.

Unlike Dick Cheney, I will not tell you that we will be greeted as liberators.

Instead, don’t be surprised if you encounter something more like this...

“I feel that ‘fake consultant’ s concerns are shared by a lot of people. I live in California where we have a large amount of illegals. It sounds like a bad idea to deny schooling to the children. In reality over fifty percent of the Hispanic kids drop out of school by the ninth grade here in California. Girls become pregant quite frequently at twelve or thirteen years old. The males are usually members of a gang by the time they’re fifteen. As ‘fake consultant’ mentions “idle hands are the Devils’ playground” and yes — these idle layaround Mexican kids love to kill people and rape and drive drunk and kill innocent people. They’ll have three generations of off spring going while a normal White couple is still contemplating their first child.

If the illegal parents were rounded up and deported back to Mexico or Central America where they came from, they would probably take their children with them — although there is a big market now on having teenage girls in Central America ‘make’ babies so their pimps (for lack of a better word) can sell the baby to parentless Whites here in America. Possibly some of the deportees would raise extra cash by selling their ‘ninos’ before they were deported.”

...which was a response from a comment I made on Buchanan.org.

When something like this is posted on TPMCafe, or Kos, or (insert your favorite community here), it’s considered trollism, and is quickly removed.

You will, if you decide to visit the neighbors, have to adjust to a different definition of polite behavior. Don’t despair. There is also an opportunity to engage with more moderate citizens of the villages as well.

That engagement, and the opinions of those who read but don’t post-there is the value of making the social effort.

We are in a battle for purple voters in this cycle, and every one will matter.

Let us now begin to visit those voters where they collect, and let’s-again, politely and with respect-start a conversation about what makes more sense for our shared country.

If we are met with responses like the one above, it’s a bonus. Purple voters who see this are more likely to consider our reasoned response. If we instead, are met with more calm responses, let’s tell our story, let them tell theirs, and let the purple voters decide.

Again, this too can help to move more purple voters into looking at any D candidate in a better light.

So where are these Conservative-leaning purple voters?

Redstate is important enough that it has become the...well, the Redstate of Conservative communities. Just like your home village, there are diarists who bring attention to the news as they see it. You’ll find interesting articles and links, just as you would expect, and a full recitation of the R talking points.

I posted and responded here in ’06, and at the time I was surprised at how often moderate voices would appear. I was not all that surprised at how often immoderate voices would appear, however. Questioning the patriotism of dissenters is a common practice. So consider yourself warned.

Visit Buchahan.org. You will be surprised with the strident disagreement these Conservatives have with this Administration. The site is not enormously active, but it is highly informative in showing not all Rs move in lockstep.

I have not become a member here or really visited, but if you wish to reach deep within the beast, here’s the Ann Coulter chat room. I anticipate few real purple voters here, but I’m often wrong, and this could be another example.

In an effort to induce audience participation, I’ll leave this list incomplete, and give you reader/participants the chance to fill it in a bit.

You might be surprised, should you wander in the Republican woods, not only how diverse opinions can be, but how much of what I perceive as a sense of desperation you’ll note in your interactions over there.

If you don’t have a good feeling about ‘08 now, it’s likely that after a few visits, you will.

So let’s sum up.

We have power, we have a summer to kill, and we have the ability to lay the groundwork for the ’08 election, so that any D candidate can hit the ground with a running start.

We can gain education, inspiration, and maybe even some of those highly desirable purple votes by taking a trip to the home of the neighbors.

Here’s the best part-by comparing our experiences, we gain a roadmap for the time ahead.

So go meet the neighbors-it’s good for us, and good for them, too.

Then let’s all get together and talk about it.

Now get out of here-and we’ll see you back with a report real soon.

On Why We Blog, Or, America's 244 Greatest Words

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal"

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow, this ground -- The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.

It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people by the people for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

--the nicolay draft of the gettysburg address; courtesy library of congress

Government by the People, for the People, and of the People.

The kind of government where you grab it with your own two hands and run the darn thing.

For the first time in my life, and probably yours too, and maybe for the first time in history, you can speak to the world-and the world listens.

Just ask Ann Coulter.

Or George Allen.

Or even better, ask Darcy Burner.

A complete political unknown with no name recognition, Ms. Burner ran for Congress in ‘06 in Washington’s 8th, a traditionally Republican district previously represented for 12 years by Jennifer Dunn, who was succeeded after the ’04 cycle by Dave Reichert, the former King County Sheriff who gained his name recognition from directing the hunt for the Green River Killer.

In a 51-48% outcome that must have left Republican hearts feeling as stressed as Dick Cheney’s, Burner lost.

And now she comes before us, as more and more elected officials are choosing to do, for the announcement of her intent to run again.

But that’s not the point.

The point is: look at the response.

Ordinary citizens are offering direct advice to a candidate who is reacting in real time.

As I say, this is hardly unique.

And that is my bigger point.

We live in a time where the real potential of the People to “be dedicated to the great task remaining before us” is at hand.

Those who seek to represent us, more and more, seek our wisdom, and our support, by coming to us directly. They are finding success in those efforts, and when the People give direction to the Candidate, or the Elected Representative, the dream of Government by the People is, for that moment, realized.

The greatness of the vision set forth by Lincoln, realized in a way he never could have imagined.

And with the potential to be repeated again and again, until this is the way politicians “talk” to their constituencies as a matter of natural practice.

There are those who benefit from a disengaged People; and in fighting them we, today, are engaged in efforts to end a great civil war.

That victory is not yet achieved, but one year ago the world was so much different. At last the People have found our voice, and our leaders seem...scared, suddenly.

And if our leaders are scared, what about those who lead them?

It’s as if the professional political control community-the Microsoft of politics, if you will (sorry, Darcy Burner, can we still be friends?), is suddenly facing a robust open-source challenge for which it was completely unprepared.

It’s not just “message” consultants looking over their shoulders-here’s an example of highly professional open-source graphic consulting.

Focus groups? Will blog communities become the new open-source focus group, or will pollsters start focus group blogs? A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse, if you ask me; and the only difference seems to be the degree of targeting needed and the desire to restrict the results.

Experts? If a candidate wanted to learn about Iraq, they might read Marshall Adame over at BlueNC, who has personally been doing the work of rebuilding that country; and I suspect he would be happy to offer advice.

For that matter, a candidate needing pretty good free advice need only post a page to Kos, or TPMCafe, or any of the entire community of communities that can offer direct communication from the electorate at large-and good advice will be found-quickly, too. There is a “wheat from chaff” element to the process, granted, but paying for advice has the same problem.

Fundraising?  Connecting to your favorite candidate is more direct than ever and eventually I suspect entire online communities will begin to donate as a group, creating “open-source PACs” that are controlled by the electorate more than the “money aggregators” of today.

The development of “open-source” campaigning may lower the barriers to entry for candidates. It also creates the chance for candidates to reach across the nation for assistance that might never have been available before.

There are candidates who are willingly adapting to this new experiment in direct Democracy, John Edwards, at this stage of the game, being the prominent example so far in the ’08 cycle.

Darcy Burner, on the other hand, represents a new development-the candidate who seeks the “open-source” solution from day one of her campaign. Who openly asks the People to be a part of governing again.

She is not the first, I am sure, to seek the People. Nor will she be the last.

And that’s why, every day, with every candidate who seeks us out, we get a little closer to the dream expressed at Gettysburg. The dream that we will truly be our own Government, a dream that seems to have gotten away from us recently, but all of a sudden, is starting to feel close enough to touch.

If Abraham Lincoln is watching this, I bet he’s proud.

On 800 Pound Gorillas, Or, Wanna Win This Thing?

I don’t usually make direct statements without some qualifications, but I believe I can safely say that unless Gore gets in the race, we have our 3 choices on the D side, and that’s about it.

I’m looking at a March 8th American Research Group poll suggesting no candidate other than Clinton, Obama, and Edwards currently attracts more than 2% of likely D primary voters. That same poll shows Clinton and Obama statistically tied (34 and 31%, respectively, with a 4% margin of error).

Rasmussen reports 34/26/15% for the same three, in the same order, on March 5th, and reported a 3% Clinton slip from the previous week. (Most likely voters, 4% margin of error.)

An average of polls shows about 36/25/12, with Obama moving sharply upward.

Unfortunately for Hillary, her trend is going the wrong way-a Quinnipiac poll taken February 13th-19th, asking “for whom would you vote today?” showed her at 38%/23%/6% (Clinton/Obama/Edwards, 3.8% margin of error).

Unless somebody does something more severe in their lives than Giuliani has done so far, the top three seems pretty much in place.

Our conversation yesterday addressed the Puppy Factor (for those who missed it, I posit that a percentage of the voting public will not, for any reason, vote for Clinton), and its effect on Hillary. The entirely unscientific poll connected to the diary suggests the Puppy Factor is real, and, if in any way applicable to the larger public, that big trouble lies ahead for the Senator.

John Kerry had to lose a Presidential election before he realized he was of more value in the Senate, and I worry that Clinton’s lack of electability could put us in the same boat in ’08.

Ds have a unique advantage this election cycle-gap voters are falling into the D camp in far stronger numbers than ever before.
Don’t believe me?
Here’s Charlie Cook:

But the real jaw dropper is when independents are asked which party they lean toward. This is important because historically, independents who lean toward a party tend to vote almost as consistently for that party as those who identify themselves with the party. There are just some people who like to call themselves independents but, functionally speaking, are really partisans.

In this category of leaners, Democrats had an advantage of 1.3 points in 2001. The parties were within the margin of error in 2002, when four-tenths of a point separated them and in 2003, when there was just a one-tenth of a point difference.
In 2004, Democrats had a 2.7 point advantage, and it grew to 4.4 points in 2005.

But in 2006, this category exploded to a 10.2-point advantage for Democrats: 50.4 percent for Democrats, 40.2 percent for Republicans. The remaining 9.4 percent did not lean toward either party.

This 10.2-point advantage is the biggest lead either party has had since Gallup began tracking the leaners in 1991.

And there’s the 800 pound gorilla-the candidate with the most money, the deepest connections, and a politically brilliant President to offer her counsel is not likely to win, nor is she likely to go home quietly.

Why do I think Hillary is in so much trouble, besides this very rudimentary polling analysis? Because I saw both the Selma speeches. In their entirety. And to be blunt, Clinton looked disconnected, forced, and, well...fake.

Obama, on the other hand-comfortable, strong, accessible-he just looked exactly like a President. And his ability to “preach” better than Hillary will get him a piece of the “Joe Wood” vote. And it’ll drive Conservatives nuts.


Edwards, who I admire, has yet to take off. But he is a white male, and history suggests white males win, so I wouldn’t discount him too quickly. Unfortunately, while trending upward currently, he’s less popular now in the average of polls than he was in 2005.

So these days, here’s what I’m wondering: there will come a point, if trends continue, where it will be time for Hillary to go. This poses two questions:

1) How can Hillary be convinced to gracefully step aside and let Obama and Edwards work it out? Options include Hillary as a Vice President (then run in 2012 or ‘16?), or convincing her to become an activist Senator in an all-D Executive and Legislative environment.
2) Edwards and Obama, or Obama and Edwards?

I’d prefer Hillary in the Senate more than VP, but that’s mainly because of math- Clinton, Edwards, and Obama, all in office, is better than any two of the same group being in office. And then there’s the Puppy Factor. Even as VP-which I’m not convinced she wants-she has a good chance, in my opinion, of hurting the D opportunity to win this thing.

Her Senate Committee memberships currently are Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; the Environment and Public Works Committee; the Special Committee on Aging; and on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Her biography also reports she’s the only Senate member of the Transformation Advisory Group to the Joint Forces Command.

So a deal to convince her to stay in the Senate might include a juicy Armed Services Subcommittee chairmanship, and more juice in force transformation (10th Mountain Division is New York based, so it helps her long-term at home); and additionally, a conversation about term limits and how they don’t apply in the Senate, but do at the White House.

With a good deal in place, Clinton should still remain a motivated D evangelist, and might choose to fundraise and spend in support of D causes.

The Clinton supporters will want to see what the February “national primary” has to say, but the current trends suggest next year may be too late-that opinions might have hardened before votes are cast.

So what about question 2?

At this point, I suggest more people around here can articulate an understanding of Edwards’ positions more easily than Obama’s, but I suspect that will become more even as Obama’s campaign gets into gear.

Obama, on the other hand, has come out of nowhere, quickly, in a way Edwards has not. He’s, ironically, filling the “Great Looking Guy” brand that Edwards occupied in ’04, and he has a great television presence. His lack of specificity on issues might or might not hurt him-we shall see. (No positions means fewer enemies, but I suspect he’ll want to express himself, and that often leads to positions, which leads to opposition...)

Perhaps the best answer to question 2 is: wait and see.

If Gore stays out, I would suggest that, just like Iraq, Edwards probably has 6 to 8 months to move into a position to seriously consider Obama as his VP. Otherwise, Obama/Edwards could be pretty tough to beat.

So there we are. Sometime between now and January we might have to have a deal in place, and by the third week of February the nomination race might well be over.

Let’s hope this time it’s the Republicans who tear each other apart.

On Unknown Languages, Or, Nuclear Is Bad, Mmm' kay

For those not yet aware, the US anticipates an energy shortage, and the Administration means to fix it.

This is why Mr. Bush told America:

"It is in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply — and the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power — by even greater use of clean coal technology ... solar and wind energy ... and clean, safe nuclear power." (my emphasis)

As usual, those far more learned than I will debunk the “clean, safe” part.

They will probably explain the issues associated with plant operations and decommissioning, and as I said, I will leave that to them.

Reactors, once started, might operate as long as 60 years.
But let’s look beyond that.

After the 60 years, there are huge decommissioning issues.
But let’s look beyond that.

As a result of the Energy Tax Incentives Act (EPAct) of 2005, Michigan and Texas are amongst the various sites being considered for new plants.

But even after the taxpayer subsidies are hand delivered to the utilities, it still might not be economically feasible to build the plants.
Let’s look beyond even that.

A long, long, long way beyond that.

Because even after the plants stop operating, and the reactors have been buried, or removed, or whatever, there’s still the matter of the fuel.

The fuel will be a problem for a long time, to say the least.
You might be a bit fuzzy on my meaning of the word “long”.
Perhaps you require more specificity.

Have you ever heard of 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 197?
You might know it as the “Million Year Regulation”

That is not a rhetorical description-it is a literal one.
The Environmental Protection Agency has asserted that they intend to regulate the nuclear waste exposure of humans, the environment, and groundwater for the next million years.

The most difficult waste to be stored will be the spent fuel rods, which are highly radioactive, as opposed to lower-level wastes-things like the coveralls worn by workers or the tools they use.

At the moment, the likely disposal site for the high-level wastes is Yucca Mountain, Nevada, where the Department of Energy’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management will, apparently for the next million years, prevent unintended releases.

There are huge obstacles for the repository-for example, water leaching.
The Department of Energy reports they can keep the water from seeping into the Repository, and then to the water table, for “many thousands of years”. Since “many thousands of years” are considerably less than a million years, you can see the difficulty there.

But let’s say for a moment that nuclear power does turn out to be safe and clean, despite our concerns. And let’s say vitrification can be accomplished effectively and economically, and that the facility is actually sealed after the waste is in the tunnel, and there is no failure of the waste containment.

After all that, there’s still one ore potential problem: the meddling humans of the future.

NPR reports: “The trefoil radioactive symbol was doodled on a notepad at the University of California Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley in 1946.”

This means we have 60 years of familiarity with the symbol.
We know, today, that if we see it, we better get away.
But what about 10,000 years from now? 50,000? 500,000?

Since humans practice archaeology (and probably will in the future), and Repositories need warning signs-well, now here’s a problem.

So how do you warn Earth residents who likely will not understand any current language, or iconography, who are thinking about doing an archeological dig on the site in 563,455 years?

Remember the “Million Year Regulation”?

Let me introduce you to the “Billion Dollar Door”

What you would see is an outer barrier of stone pillars-20 feet tall and 25 feet apart-with hundreds of "marker signs" scattered on the ground around the site. There are four “monuments” that contain additional information about the site. It is also proposed that magnetic and other types of indicators of human activity be placed at the location.

It is estimated it could take 30 years to complete the project.

Seems like a pretty good design.
Also seems a bit like Stonehenge.

And there’s the trouble.

Stonehenge, due to its mystery, is a premier archeological site, and there’s no reason to believe this won’t be either.

And when we discover a pyramid, or a Henge, or a longhouse, what do we assume? Religious significance.

So imagine some future university decides to send archeologists to this site that is obviously covered with thousands of religious symbols, and the very warning we designed turns out to be the attraction that undoes our relatives in the future.

Or the sharks with lasers on their heads that will probably take over after we have gone.

Mr. Mackie would tell you the message here is very simple:

“Nuclear is bad, mmm’kay.”

If a million year regulation doesn’t make you want to stop building nuclear reactors; and the costs of construction and decommissioning don’t make you want to stop building nuclear reactors; and a billion dollar door doesn’t make you want to building nuclear reactors either, well...

...at least do it for the frickin’ sharks with the lasers on their heads.

On Purple Crayons, Or, Thank You, Ann Coulter

If you look in the 24 pack of Crayola crayons, here’s what you find:

The Red community:
Scarlet, Red, Red Violet, and Red Orange.

The Blue Community:
Indigo, Blue, Cerulean, and Blue Green

And in the middle-the Purples:
Violet, Blue Violet, and Violet Red.

Even the crayon box mirrors the electorate-both sides have their “base” and both are fighting for the middle.

And so it is with the Republican Party, America’s voters, and that most delicate of feminine flowers, Ann Coulter.

For those recently reincarnated or otherwise missing, Ms. Coulter “went a little funny in the head” to quote President Merkin Muffley. Ten thousand voices, all smarter than I, have rendered their disapproval, and I suspect she hasn’t heard one of them.

Or at least I hope she hasn’t.
Why would I say such a thing?

Because I want those purple crayons.
I want ‘em bad.

And every time Coulter does one of these (and we all know this ain’t the first...) I think happy thoughts. Thoughts of November, 2006. A time when many, many purple crayons, indeed, saw the Rs as the scary choice, and voted D.

In fact, I suggest that if Ann Coulter didn’t exist, we might have considered inventing our own, as a satire of reality. But lucky for the Ds, her truth is stranger than our fiction, and the work has been done for us.

Just consider the 110th Congress’ seven new Senators: Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). At least two of the States represented (Ohio and Missouri) tend to lean R, and Casey took out Santorum.

I don’t suggest Coulter is responsible for the majority of this, or even a lot; just that she ain’t hurtin’ the process, and every little bit helps in a race that might have less than 5 points separating the winner and loser.

OK, so, a confession: I’m basically lazy.
I do a fair amount of research for a post, but sometimes, even after all that work it’s sometimes hard to raise outrage over the retooling of a regulation, or the award of another non-competitive contract.

But finding something that Coulter did which can be described as outrageous is like reaching in a really full pickle barrel-it’s just so easy. This, truthfully, has a lot to do with why I’ve never taken up this issue before.

Besides, why would I want her to quit?
Here’s five more reasons I love Ann Coulter:

1) Ann Coulter makes Dennis Kucinich look like Allen Greenspan.
2) Ann Coulter gives Al Franken something better to talk about than Rush Limbaugh for a day. Maybe two.
3) For an analyst, she’s not so good at analyzing. Check out this brilliant prediction on the ’06 Senate race:

COULTER: Those are the three of about six or seven that are highly contested that I actually think we're going to win. In Talent's case, I just can't believe he is in trouble. He is a magnificent senator. If anyone should be in trouble, it shouldn't be Jim Talent, though Missouri is a very weird state. It seems to be like half Tennessee, half Massachusetts. They voted for Adlai Stevenson in 1956. It is kind of a nutty state. They voted for Clinton twice and but they also voted for John Ashcroft.

Allen I think is ahead and Ford I think is also an interesting case in Tennessee because I hate to say this but Ford is my favorite Democrat and I wish he were running in Rhode Island against Chafee and I would support him. If he were running in Connecticut I would support him.

4) Ann Coulter books, when purchased at discount bookstores, can actually be cheaper than toilet paper, per square inch. And just as useful.
5) I have an Ann Coulter policy. If she comes on TV, since she’s clearly living in some mystical dream world, I listen to music from a mystical dream world instead of her audio. As a result, I get unexpected opportunities to listen to “IZ” Kamakawiwo’ole I wouldn’t have otherwise.

And so I say to Indigo, Blue, Cerulean, and Blue Green:

Don’t hate Ann Coulter.
Love her.
Embrace her.
Even if she doesn’t mean to, she’s working for us.

Violet, Blue Violet, and Violet Red?

Well, if you weren’t smart enough to see through all of this, you wouldn’t be Violet, would you?

So let Crazy Ann be Crazy Ann, and let the purple voters watch, and we’ll have another reason to look forward to ’08.

On Saving Louisiana, Or, Send Me Your Mud, Yearning To Be Free

Let’s begin today’s discussion with a quick thought experiment.

What is the single most important thing necessary to ensure the survival of the State of Louisiana?

Improved government administration?
More and better levees?
The success of the “Road Home” project?

I submit it is none of these.

The single most important factor determining the future of the State of Louisiana is mud.

That’s right, mud.

Were you aware that the entire State consists of mud? When you look at a geologic map, there is nothing to be seen but sedimentary deposits dating back to the Cambrian period.

And the mud, it is a-sinking.

Katrina took out more than 57 square miles of land in Plaquemines Parish alone. That former land is now the Gulf of Mexico.

The Army Corps of Engineers has maps of the Mississippi river from 1998. When you get to the page, click on map 141. What you see is a portion of Plaquemines Parish. (Here’s the same place on Google Maps.)

Notice almost the entire map area consists of water, canals, and marsh. There’s only two narrow strips of solid ground evident. Now let’s pull out a bit. There’s just about nothing in the image but sinking ground. Now pull out just a little bit further, and guess what-there’s New Orleans.

This was the area of Louisiana most affected by Katrina.

It’s now time for you to meet Professor Oliver A. Houck. His essay “Can We Save New Orleans?”, published in the Tulane Law Journal, will be central to the remainder of this conversation, and I would encourage you in the strongest terms to take the time to read the document.

Here are some of the issues he brings to light:

--There is no consensus on what is to be done-should the emphasis be on maximizing the amount of developable land; or should the emphasis be on maximizing opportunities for natural processes to replenish the bayous? These are two mutually exclusive goals, and Houck suggests development is winning.

--The Federal government is responsible for maintaining navigation on the Mississippi, but flood control is managed locally. As a result of this and the huge amounts of money that are spread around through levee and other water control project construction, politics has more influence on the management process than science and inter-jurisdictional coordination.

--Environmental pollution-especially fertilizer runoffs-kill the marsh grasses that hold the soil together. As a result, the process of saving Louisiana starts in South Dakota, and is therefore a national, not just a State problem.

--It is easier to calculate the cost-benefit of industrial and commercial activity than the cost-benefit of saving lives-and safety advocates have fewer lobbyists.

--Money spent now, on non-development rights, for example, will be cheaper than money spent later on reconstruction or remediation.

And the most important of all:

--It’s the constant movement of silt down the river that makes it possible for there to be a Louisiana-and America’s history of “taming” the Mississippi has nearly brought that process to a stop. The River carried 400 million tons a year of silt 150 years ago, Houck reports, and today carries only 80 million. Without that “new” land to deposit in the Delta, there is no way to offset the erosion to the Gulf of Mexico.

That’s not the only reason the State is sinking, however. Pumping drinking water from aquifers has an impact, and the expansion of the ocean caused by global warming does, too. Even the weight of the levees themselves on the soft soil is affecting the situation.

Professor Houck, being a “fix-it” kind of analyst, has offered a ten-point prescription for Louisiana recovery. Here’s the “Reader’s Digest Condensed Version”:

1) Draw the map-in other words, there needs to be a set of decisions made regarding exactly where humans will be allowed to control the land, and where the river will have its say.
2) With a new map, reconsider the projects-Houck reminds us that Katrina changed everything, and that projects already designed or underway are probably the wrong solutions to today’s problems.
3) “Free the Mississippi 400 million”-open dams upriver to allow the 400 million tons of silt to do its thing downriver.
4) Free the rivers-the logical extension of point 3. Open the levees appropriately, and let the rivers do their thing.
5) Cut the upstream fertilizers-we discussed this above-fertilizer kills grass, and that kills land. This is where parties outside Louisiana have to step up to the plate-the EPA, the Corps of Engineers, the various States, and maybe even private actors such as the Nature Conservancy.
6) Heal the marsh-if grass holds the mud in place, then grass we must grow. Professor Houck uses a farming analogy-one in which Louisianans would essentially become “land farmers”.
7) Quit making it worse-dredging and filling for canals and subdivisions is the enemy. As we said above, prevention is cheaper than mitigation.
8) Make room for Nature-consolidate human development within protected areas to create room for natural restoration to work.
9) Dare to think retreat-Houck advocates completely removing residential development from threatened areas, through buyouts. He makes the argument that businesses can be sustained, however.
10) Global warming is real-Professor Houck suggests denial here just makes the problem much, much worse.

We have already seen the consequences of our desire to develop every inch of shoreline, and not just in Louisiana, but all along the Gulf Coast. And we already are beginning to understand that this is truly a national problem.

But if we hope to keep South Louisiana as a functioning economy or even as an above water piece of real estate, we better start talking about national solutions that help Nature’s solutions.

On Recovery, Or, A Tale Of Two Louisianas

There have been many stories told, and there will be many stories to tell, of how New Orleans and the communities to the southeast struggle to recover from the hurricanes of 2005.

Before I began researching this story, I assumed that pattern would be the same across the entire Louisiana Gulf Coast.

But I was wrong.

Have you ever heard of Houma, Louisiana? Houma is the largest city in Terrebonne Parish. (For those not familiar, a parish is the equivalent of a county.)

To set the stage, here’s some background information about the Parish:

--In an uncommon move, the City and Parish governments were combined some time back.

--When you think of Cajun culture, think Terrebonne Parish. The southern Parish is bayou country, and there are lots of hunting and fishing “camps” in the area. So many bayous, in fact, that the “Swamp Thing” comics are set here.

--The city of Houma officially sits 13 feet above sea level. Portions of the southern Parish are, literally, sea bottom. More about that later.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita did affect the Parish, but not in ways you might expect. And the biggest change in the Parish might turn out to be more or less unrelated to the hurricanes.

Jean Bomvillain, the Parish’s tax assessor, told me in a March 1st telephone interview that there’s been a continuous period of growth following the storms which continues today. He also told me that since the storms:

--The tax base has gone up-assessed value in the Parish is up $40 million, in fact.

--Sales tax revenues for 2006 were $9 million higher than 2005.

--There are an additional 3000 new housing units that did not exist before the storm. Despite this, he reports a housing shortage.

--About half of the 20,000 residents of New Orleans and the other southeast Parishes that temporarily came to the Houma area have remained to become permanent residents. As a result, Terrebonne Parish’s population is about 110,000, he estimates. FedStats estimated about 107,000 in 2005.

--He does not see an enormous impact from the problems surrounding the “Road Home” program in the Parish. That’s not a unanimous opinion, however.

The reason for the difference between Terrebonne Parish and Orleans Parish (or Jefferson, or Plaquemines, for that matter) is that the hurricanes really did very little damage here. The nearby Vermilion Parish school district site has images that will give you an idea of what the local flooding looked like afterward.

There have been some permanent problems. Real estate has been affected in the southern Parish quite profoundly. Here’s what Mr. Bomvillain, the tax assessor, told me:

--There was an 8 foot storm surge, and as a result, to obtain insurance, houses in the affected area must be raised 9 feet. Let’s not just gloss over that-try to imagine raising your house and sitting it on a 9 foot tall platform sometime. Now consider what that will do to your property value.

--The coastline is sinking. Mr. Bomvillain reminded me that Louisiana loses “the entire State of New Jersey every year” to this phenomenon. I asked the assessor if this land had to be removed from the parish tax rolls.

It does not. It becomes the sea bottom portion of the Parish. The value of the land is appropriately reduced, I was told; but because the parish collects oil drilling royalties from offshore activities, they can’t just “lose” (my quotes, not his) the properties that become submerged.

As a result of all this, the character of the parish will change. Already something close to 90% of local construction activity is occurring around Houma, and it’s not likely the southern portions of the Parish will return to previous levels of hunting, fishing, shrimping, or its other businesses anytime soon, if ever.

On the other hand, if you talk to someone in Houma in a retail or service business, things are pretty good.

Particularly if you talk to Mary Strickland, over at “A Stitch In Time”. She told me that Katrina really wasn’t a big deal in Houma, and that Rita was the one that affected them. Even at that, she reported to me that she was only closed for 5 days, while Houma waited for power to be restored from other parts of the State. “50 miles makes a difference” was how she explained what happened.

How about her business? She told me that immediately after Katrina she did a substantial business in dry cleaning and restoring evacuee’s clothing and belongings. But she also told me the new residents have had a positive impact on her bottom line. There are new businesses opening in Houma that relocated from New Orleans.

She told me about other changes to the city: she mentioned that she perceives an increase in crime, especially robbery and burglary. She also noted that apartment rents have increased “phenomenally”. On the other hand, she told me her shop’s rent had not changed, remaining “$1 a square foot”.

She made two other comments that I found most interesting.

She said Louisiana “needs to do the Dutch thing” to stop coastal erosion.
In the very next sentence she said: ”if Louisiana would get 50% of our oil revenue (referring to royalties from offshore drilling) we wouldn’t have to ask the government for help” paying for shoreline improvements.

As I said at the top of the story, the recovery issues in New Orleans will, for obvious reasons, hold our attention for some time to come.

But below the surface there is a second Louisiana recovery-a Louisiana who, at the moment, has mostly escaped one disaster, and feels optimism about the future; but worries about another disaster that they know will eventually come if they can’t stop it.