I was watching CNN on Tuesday night when they pop in with the “Breaking News” (complete with red alert graphics) that New Orleans is essentially dry. This struck me as odd on several levels:
(1) In what sense was this a “breaking news”? Did the water suddenly vanish?
There are still a bunch of reporters around New Orleans who I presume are not holed up in some sort of green zone. Could they not see the water slowly disappearing?
(2) How often were we told by our trusted names in journalism that it would take months to dry the city out? Enough to believe it was gospel truth. Aaron Brown asked about this:

BROWN: How did we get from, it’s going to take 60 days to dry out the city to, it’s going to take two-and-a-half weeks to dry out the city?
[COL. DUANE] GAPINSKI [ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS]: Well, Aaron, you know, that 60-day prediction, actually, I think it was six months initially. That’s based on no information, no assessment of the status of the pumps and the canals and the levees.
So, as we refine those assessments, that — those predictions become better. But the one thing you can’t measure is the will and determination of the people on the ground fixing those pumps and moving that water out of the city.

So basically reporters picked up an early estimate from someone, and kept repeating it as fact even when independent follow up on the question should have quickly revealed that the initial estimates were way off. But why go to all that work of independent confirmation when you can simply repeat what government authorities tell you? This is modern journalism, after all.
(3) Whoever made the initial estimate didn’t really know how long it would take to drain the city and apparently just picked a time frame that sounded good. Couple this with the heavily-inflated death toll predictions, and it calls into question many of the estimates we’ve been hearing.
For instance, as Bill Maher noted last night, where is the government coming up with its cost figures for Katrina relief? Very quickly, Congress cranks out a $60 billion+ bill. Do you think there’s one member of Congress who really knows what that money is going toward? I doubt it.

America still has some available. If you go through the proper hoops while building a house out in Nowhere, Kansas, you can get a free lot.
Apparently, there’s not a great demand for this brand of “Small Town Living.”

Heh.

One thing I thought about several times in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is, “I’m glad that kind of thing doesn’t happen here.” Undoubtedly I’m not alone in pondering how susceptible this area is to natural disaster.
Generally, I think East Tennessee is pretty safe. This area isn’t prone to hurricane damage (several hundred miles from the ocean), earthquakes (several hundred miles from a major fault line), large tornadoes (too hilly), blizzards (too warm), or large wildfires (too wet). The primary natural disaster that threatens this area is (flash) flooding, which you can some degree insulate yourself from by not living in a low-lying area (there aren’t any large flood plains here).
Over at Slate, Brendan Koerner asks where the best place in America is to hide from mother nature. He bases his answer, in large part, to this FEMA graph, which plots presidential disaster declarations by county over a nearly 40-year span. I was surprised to see that East Tennessee is actually one of the more disaster-prone areas, based on the number of declarations. I assume that flooding is the major culprit.
Anyway, according to Mr. Koerner’s non-scientific analysis, what’s the “safest” place in America to live? Storrs, Connecticut.

How large a group do you have to assemble before there’s a 50% that two people share the same birthday?
If, like me, you’re not mathematically minded, your initial hunch might be 183 (366/2).
Nope. It’s much lower.
Answer here.