My friend Michael, who gave up blogging before he really ever started, has written a letter regarding the tragic events in New Orleans. He thinks it’s a warranty problem:
Dear M. Chirac, M. Villepen, et. al; representing the sovereign nation of France; dba. Fifth French Republic (1958-present), dba. Fourth French Republic (1944-1958), dba. Vichy Regime (1940-1944), dba. Third French Republic (1870-1940), dba. Second French Empire (1852-1870), dba. Second French Republic (1848-1852), dba. Orleans Monarchy (1830-1848), dba. Bourbon Monarchy (Restoration) (1815-1830), dba. First French Republic (Napoleonic Empire)(1799-1815), dba First French Republic (Revolutionary France)(1789-199), dba. Kingdom of France (Capetian, Valois, et. Bourbon):
It is with great regret that we inform you that failing immediate correction, payment, or other remediation upon receipt of this communication, our client (The United States of America) will be forced to pursue legal action regarding deficiencies and defects related to purchases made in 1803 from your nation.
At the time of such purchase (commonly referred to as ‘The Louisiana Purchase’), the Nation of France offered warranties, both express and implied, that residential and commercial buildings, military installations, religious structures, and other improvements included within the sale had been properly sited and located such that their value could be maintained and improved without rework or relocation. Indeed, most contemporary correspondence indicates that the administrative center of the lands in question, the City of New Orleans, was the primary object of value in the sale.
Unfortunately, since time of purchase, it has become increasingly apparent that the said City has been grievously and negligently mis-sited, and the improvements made and included in the sale needlessly imperiled by the site selected. Such a charge is not being precipitously made, and our client has made a lengthy and sustained effort to remediate these problems without cost or action to your Nation. Unfortunately, the site chosen was so poorly placed that diligent engineering over the ensuing two (2) centuries has been insufficient to remedy defects which should have been readily apparent to the sovereign nation of France during the establishment process.
A simple review of the transaction documents, which may be reviewed at our client’s government archives in the event that subsequent administrative changes in your capital have resulted in the loss of your documentation, shows that NO flood plain disclosure form was included, in direct contravention of current U.S. law and practice. Additionally, documentation provided by your nation was so sparse that immediate mapping expeditions were required by our client to determine the extent and disposition of the lands and improvements offered in the sale. Given the state of the documentation, it is unreasonable for you to assume that our client was aware of the full condition of the site and its interaction with the regional climate and flooding patterns.
Furthermore, it is well established that M. Jean-Baptist Le Moyne de Bienville was acting as an agent of the Crown, and such agency is underscored by his appointment as Governor of the region. His actions on the Crown’s behalf included the negligent siting previously stated, and as such, the Crown and its successor organizations are liable for such negligence. In the unlikely event that M. le Moyn de Bienville or the government were unaware of his poor judgment, the period of 1718-1803 should have served as more than adequate time to become aware of the issue, and either remediate or disclose it. The period of Spanish administration 1763-1801 does not seem germane to this discussion, as such loss of sovereignty was the result of a pattern of questionable military decisions exhibited by the nation of France, and further, the nation of France still felt a sufficient ownership connection to the property to insist on its return at the earliest possible moment.
In retrospect, our client wishes that more questions had been asked regarding the suspiciously low sale price, but the assumption that the low price was the result of your Nation’s frequent military endeavors was a reasonable one given the pattern of the prior four (4) centuries.
We would like to assure you that our client has received great value and enjoyment from most of the purchase, and simply wishes remediation of this issue arising from your breach of contract. Therefore, we look forward to your prompt attention to this matter to avoid the necessity of any legal action.
OK, you buy a shirt, I’ll donate the profits(with a 100% match) to the 
One of the songs that I’ve now heard a million times is 
Today marks the 28th anniversary of the death of 