![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
napoleonherselfSo ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
vfc's post got me thinkin'.
See, mechamom has this thing. Whenever anybody mentions what's happened to New Orleans, she tells them to quit making a big deal of it, that these things happen, look at what Hugo did to Charleston back in '89. It's just a natural disaster and reflects not at all on our government. Recovery is going to take time. Again, see Charleston.
It never seems to matter how many numbers and figures and facts mecha mentions, she always falls back on her "look it happens it is nothing new Hugo hit so much harder now let's stop talking about it" defense. But I figured I'd look up some numbers anyway, because hey, I was curious. What do I know from something that happened when I was 8? Back then I was too busy watching Thundercats and playing with My Little Ponies to care.
So according to ten minutes of Googling, Hugo hit the Carolinas as a category 4 while Katrina hit the Gulf Coast as a category 3. My foolish liberal brain would therefore expect that our example of poor, poor Charleston would've taken it up the ass compared to lucky New Orleans. More damage, slower recovery, awful all around.
And then there's the results of my Googling, which, granted, may be wrong. For all I know I was looking at pages written by foul info-terrorists, cruelly snickering fiends who dedicate their lives to making Livejournal posts inaccurate. Either way, the numbers I get are:
Wow. Funny how harder-hit Charleston, or more accurately the general Charleston area, appears to have done much better than New Orleans. Even the mayor of Charleston, who was THERE when Hugo hit, has commented on how bad it looks for New Orleans.
I'm sure it's not incompetence, though. Nah. Couldn't be that the levees weren't maintained properly, and thus broke, causing far more damage than Katrina itself could do directly. Couldn't be that FEMA is dragging its feet even more than usual on recovery. Perish the thought that our wonderful government would stiff its people on needed expenditures. Especially poor people, but then, it isn't such a big deal if poor people get shafted, right? Poor people live in economically depressed areas, and those areas aren't all that important to rebuild anyway. (which is actually what mechamom said once. She's such a Republican.)
I have nothing against the city of Charleston. I'm sure it's a lovely city, although I don't think I've ever been there. But I think it's kind of bullshit to say that what's happened to New Orleans is exactly what happened to Charleston.
I also have nothing against the other areas damaged by Hugo and Katrina. I know that a huge chunk of the Gulf Coast got raped last year, and that a chunk of the East Coast got it in 1989. But I was Googling things related to the argument that mecha and mechamom often have, and that means New Orleans and Charleston.
So yeah. There's my arbitrary time period of thought for the day. Now I think I shall go back to such mindless pursuits as playing EVE and working on comics.
vfc's post got me thinkin'.See, mechamom has this thing. Whenever anybody mentions what's happened to New Orleans, she tells them to quit making a big deal of it, that these things happen, look at what Hugo did to Charleston back in '89. It's just a natural disaster and reflects not at all on our government. Recovery is going to take time. Again, see Charleston.
It never seems to matter how many numbers and figures and facts mecha mentions, she always falls back on her "look it happens it is nothing new Hugo hit so much harder now let's stop talking about it" defense. But I figured I'd look up some numbers anyway, because hey, I was curious. What do I know from something that happened when I was 8? Back then I was too busy watching Thundercats and playing with My Little Ponies to care.
So according to ten minutes of Googling, Hugo hit the Carolinas as a category 4 while Katrina hit the Gulf Coast as a category 3. My foolish liberal brain would therefore expect that our example of poor, poor Charleston would've taken it up the ass compared to lucky New Orleans. More damage, slower recovery, awful all around.
And then there's the results of my Googling, which, granted, may be wrong. For all I know I was looking at pages written by foul info-terrorists, cruelly snickering fiends who dedicate their lives to making Livejournal posts inaccurate. Either way, the numbers I get are:
| Charleston vs. Hugo, 1989 title bout | Nawlins vs. Katrina, 2005 grudge match | |
| 250,000 evacuations across affected areas | 1.5 million evacuations across affected areas | |
| 900,000 people without electricity after the main event across North and South Carolina | 800,000 without electricity after the main event in Louisiana alone; 800k more in Mississippi, 500k in Alabama, &c. | |
| Under 100 deaths from Hugo (every source says something different but the highest I've seen was in the low 50s) | Over 1,000 dead from Katrina | |
| Hugo cost an estimated $12.6 billion in 2005 dollars | New Orleans is costing an estimated $75 billion in 2005 dollars | |
| "The vast majority of residents were back in their homes three months after the hurricane" | 4 months later entire blocks are still deserted; 4.75 months later an estimated TWO-THIRDS of the city is empty |
Wow. Funny how harder-hit Charleston, or more accurately the general Charleston area, appears to have done much better than New Orleans. Even the mayor of Charleston, who was THERE when Hugo hit, has commented on how bad it looks for New Orleans.
I'm sure it's not incompetence, though. Nah. Couldn't be that the levees weren't maintained properly, and thus broke, causing far more damage than Katrina itself could do directly. Couldn't be that FEMA is dragging its feet even more than usual on recovery. Perish the thought that our wonderful government would stiff its people on needed expenditures. Especially poor people, but then, it isn't such a big deal if poor people get shafted, right? Poor people live in economically depressed areas, and those areas aren't all that important to rebuild anyway. (which is actually what mechamom said once. She's such a Republican.)
I have nothing against the city of Charleston. I'm sure it's a lovely city, although I don't think I've ever been there. But I think it's kind of bullshit to say that what's happened to New Orleans is exactly what happened to Charleston.
I also have nothing against the other areas damaged by Hugo and Katrina. I know that a huge chunk of the Gulf Coast got raped last year, and that a chunk of the East Coast got it in 1989. But I was Googling things related to the argument that mecha and mechamom often have, and that means New Orleans and Charleston.
So yeah. There's my arbitrary time period of thought for the day. Now I think I shall go back to such mindless pursuits as playing EVE and working on comics.
