The Mississippi flood which include the flood at Iowa and subsequently those in Illinois was God's disapproval of Obama as presidential candidate. The flood at Illinois on June 18, 2008 was especially serious. The flood water has broken many dikes and levees. Iowa was the first state in the primary presidential election for Obama and Illinois is Obama's home state. In May 2008 when the Democrat governor of Oklahoma endorsed Obama, in two days tornadoes on Oklahoma killed 100 people and destroyed $1 billion of properties. This had confirm that there is a God/Environment and He is against Obama. God even hates the aphabet "O". The fact that Iowa similar "I. O. Wa." or "I. O. U." probably means the Black community may have owed Washington or the U. S government or the American people in general something very important. What they are, many of you should be able to determine yourselves? I am here only to help you understand the messages from the Environment so that future disasters can be averted. Future disasters to the U. S. will certainly confirm my prophecy.
- 1
- 2
Lessons from Katrina
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Considering the enormity of the destruction, what else could have been done to restore New Orleans?
It would have taken something akin to a Marshall Plan. It would have entailed some big public-works expenditures very early on just to lay the base for them to support economic development and affordable housing on a scale much, much larger than what was committed. The most interesting thing is, if you go back and watch [President Bush] on Sept. 15, 2005, addressing the city and talking about the commitment to rebuild, he sounded like Lyndon Johnson. It was the Great Society. I can't understand where it came from. But in order to enact that vision he laid out would have required a huge undertaking that we never came close to achieving.
There has been some redevelopment. Can you talk about what's worked?
Mississippi has done all right. Gov. Haley Barbour deserves some credit for getting agencies together on the same page and getting some federal money pretty quick. The single most important thing he did was move the casinos onshore. So you drive around the Mississippi coast and you see casinos and rubble, isn't that America for you? But if it wasn't for that, there would be nothing in terms of economic development there."
What about some of the inland towns and counties that absorbed people? How are they faring?
They're struggling, these small communities a few miles inland have had to deal with major growth problems over the last couple years. They're overcrowded. Their services are strained.
The study argues that bureaucratic red tape impeded progress.
Governments couldn't connect on any level. Everyone had different ideas about what should be done. One wanted a new-urbanism approach to rebuilding, with new condos with a heavy emphasis on tourism, and another wanted an affordable-housing-centered plan that cared deeply about the low-income situation. You need workers to get any of this done, and with competing concepts and a total lack of structured debate, it was very hard to get an agreement. You then had to deal with the Feds and all their requirements. They weren't going to spend money on rebuilding unless there was the proper insurance available and structures were built to withstand future disasters. Not to mention, you had a political culture and history in New Orleans that is rough and tumble to say the least.
What lessons can be applied to the situation along the Mississippi River Valley?
The questions of intergovernmental collisions do provide lessons for Iowa in that you have all these interests at stake, the agriculture and farm interests, the developers and business interests, poor people and social programs. I can say that in Mississippi, they had a pretty strong structure to put people together and make decisions, which wasn't the case in Louisiana. People can talk forever about wanting to do things, but it all boils down to how can you get a structure in place that will have some closing capabilities. American government is pluralist. It's very change resistant. The sooner they realize that, the better.
© 2008
- 1
- 2
Discuss