Bill,

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:01:09 -0700, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:

>...<
> I have little faith in the media's reporting from such sites, though.
> They tend to focus on the spectacular, especially for things "close to
> home."  And I worry about all those gulf coast sites hit by the  
> hurricane
> and being (apparently) ignored in favor of the "more interesting" events
> in New Orleans. 

Well the BBC have people in (from memory) Gulfport and Biloxi as well as New Orleans, and while things are 
pretty bad they are they don't seem to be as bad - the flooding seems to be the big problem in NO.  Mind you, 
seeing a bridge collapsed as if each piece had been removed and stacked on the next was amazing (that was in 
Gulfport, I think).

The fact that people are still tapped in NO by the water is the big problem, and since it's now a been a week 
in my opinion that's what they should be addressing.  My opinion is worth no more than you paid for it, of 
course!

> And with Louisiana national guard troops being in Iraq,
> there's a big opportunity to drag THAT political controversy into the
> discussion.

I was amazed to hear that - I thought the National Guard was only for use at home!

> (And what about Mexico - did it avoid storm damage
> entirely?  Katrina filled practically the whole gulf in the satellite
> photos posted, although I don't know how much of that cloud cover was
> actually "severe" weather...)

Well Texas seems to have been unscathed, so I think Mexico is a safe distance from the damaging winds.  The 
circulating winds cover a huge area, but at the outskirts they wouldn't have been more powerful than ordinary 
weather.  f = mrw^2 and all that!



Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist