<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/14015353.htm?source=rss&channel=thestate_news[/url]”>http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/14015353.htm?source=rss&channel=thestate_news</a></p>
<p>I note that was posted in another thread. Sorry, but it’s still relevant here.</p>
<p>Other levees around New Orleans were overtopped without breaching. The Corp as a very specific meaning for the word “breach” and there’s no evidence that anyone expected the overtopping anticipated to result in a breach. Probably wouldn’t have if the levees had been built properly, of course.</p>
<p>Then they are fools that that we Idiots have to endure. Clinton had a specific meaning for sex as does some our children. Johnson had a specific definition for an attack. Roosevelt took the strick definition for neutrality. Newspeak.</p>
<p>But we may be the fools and they are the idiots. What’s your take?</p>
<p>Thanks, Xiggi, that’s the one. Very important piece of our constiutional liberties, but one that we may need to examine in action. What if the governor is incapcitated or mentally ill? After Katrina, you begin to see all kinds of cray situations that could come up. The idea of an incommunicado or incapacitated governor was irrelevant, because Washington wouldn’t have known about an emergency either.</p>
<p>As for the overtop vs breach, a Corps member here explained to me that the distinction is very important to them, because the levees are engineered to allow for some overtopping, leading to minor flooding, but still hold (not breach). What was not known was how strong they would need to be to hold up in the face of the wind pushing the water, and undermining on the inside. And, despite this “experiment of nature” we call katrina, we still don’t know, because the levees weren’t built to specs in the first place!</p>