A case can be made that NO was the most poorly designed city in North America, and maybe the world. Even though Venice is still sinking at least the people of Venice had sense enough to build on stilts. I'm not sure how NO made it as long as it did, most of the other poorly designed gulf cities were wiped out over time. I'm a History Channel nerd and I've seen the documentaries on most of the world's greatest natural disasters more times than I care to mention. There is no stopping nature, we're all at her mercy, no matter what part of the world we live in, everyone should respect the power of nature. It doesn't matter if it's flood, fire, earthquake, hurricane, tornado, tsunami, volcano... most people live in denial, the "it won't happen to me" attitude. Tsunami's are a great example, just in the US Hawaii and Alaska have been repeatedly hit by Tsunami's, in fact the height of the wave that hit the Alaskan coast in 1958 was over 1700 feet. However because both states are sparsely populated, the death tolls were relatively low, and the locations remote most people in this country and around the world didn't really have enough respect for their power. It took loss of life on an unprecedented scale to get the global community to rethink how great the threat of a tsunami is. Even in the midwest where we think we're relatively shielded from the worst natural disasters, we think we mostly have to worry about flooding and tornados, we'll get ours eventually, it's only a matter of time. Getting back to my example, Galvenston was already above see level before the hurricane leveled the town. After the Hurricane the entire island was raised up to 17 feet, a sea wall was added, and stil the city never fully recovered. Indianola was actually rebuilt once, but abandoned after being destoryed a second time. Both Galvenston and Indianola were the primary ports in Texas follwing the Civil War, but I doubt many people have heard of either now. I feel the same way about NO, it's value was mostly cultural, the city while it will survive, it will never be the same, and rightly so. There's sadness there to be sure, as in some respects it was the end of an era. Time will march on, but trying to save a city that exists below sea level from natural events seems like a fruitless endeavor to me. Comparing NO to the Netherlands is apples to oranges. The Netherlands is relatively shielded from Atlantic storms at the south end of the North Sea, and their whole modern history and infastructure has evolved around keeping the see at bay. It's very interesting, or at least to me, how they manage to keep the country dry, it started by windmills pumping from one pool, to the next, to the next, and finally ending up dumping the water in a lake or river. I thought the windmills were neat as a kid but never understood the significance. The Netherlands gets bad storms to be sure, but the surges and sustained winds really don't compare with Category 3 and 4 Hurricanes, with notable exception of 1953 (a perfect storm at high tide raised sea level 5.6 meters over the mean). Even so the country has repeatedly flooded and cities have been destroyed, most recently in 1953 as I noted earlier. As a side note there was a fascinating story about a mayor or governor that ordered a freighter to beach itself against a hole in the dike.. the beaching actually worked saving coutnless lives, but a quick google search for a link came up emtpy, I'm unable to remember the names involved and it's late. At any rate, for the country to exist they've had to make flood control their #1 priority. The storm surge in 1953 at high tide was equivilent of a Category 5 hurricane, when Katrina made landfall on the continental US it was only a Category 3... there is no such need for the US to continually rebuild/reinforce NO, the citie's commercial and strategic value is minimal, and has been since the turn of the century. One could make a good case that the city has been on the decline since the Civil War... While the citie's history and culture is important and should be preserved within reason, what's reasonable is open to debate. I personally think the whole thing has been handled foolishly, and as the saying goes, "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it". I didn't read the post in question the same way Joe did, I read it as a matter of fact of statement regarding the reality of the aftermath of Katrina, not an indictment of an entire race(s). I'm unsure how the discussion can continue without crossing the line here at BF.net, that topic belongs on the political forum.