2005-09-07

Gender and Friendships

Oh, the horror. What is a parent to do when a boy's friends are girls?
Q: Our high school son’s friends seem to be overwhelmingly female.

We think he's still too young to be spending so much time with the young ladies. In his young teen years we would prefer him to be playing ball with guys his age.

Is there anything unusual about this?

Notice the easy segue from what "we would prefer" to the question of what is "unusual".

MSNBC Today's parenting guru, Dr. Ruth Peters, hedges.
A: The response depends upon how your child fits in with other kids his age, especially at school.

Many teenage boys that I’ve worked with maintain “special friendships” with girls, mainly because they feel that females tend to be better listeners than guys. Your son may be more comfortable talking on the phone with girls as well as engaging in social activities, rather than playing ball or hanging out with guys his age.

There's nothing wrong with this, especially if the young ladies are appropriate, good and loyal friends. The question, though, is one of balance.

Ah, so it's "balance" that matters. Should we set a goal, then? If "balance" is what we're after, perhaps a 50/50 gender ratio would be optimal. So, Dr. Ruth Peters, are you now ready to tell every mother in America that fifty percent of her son's buddies should be girls? Didn't think so. It's only when the boy's friends are the "wrong" gender that balance is an issue, isn't it?
If your child focuses his friendships totally upon females because he feels that he cannot make and keep friendships with guys, there may be a problem.

So now we're going to start looking for all the reasons having female friends might be a problem.
Perhaps he is not athletic and feels self-conscious hanging around with boys. Or, an embarrassing event earlier in life may have shaken his self-confidence and he fears that he will be rejected if he tries to socialize with them.

Did the writer mention any of these things? I missed it. But that doesn't stop Ruth Peters from trying to pathologize the boy's friendships with girls, just as the reactionary "experts" of a generation ago came up with all kinds of theories about the "cause" of homosexuality (domineering mother, absent father, blah blah blah). Some of them are still at it.
In my experience, I find that most teens realize that a mix of both male and female friends works best and they tend to move within mixed groups of boys and girls.

Here's the one statement in Peters' column that I can unequivocally agree with. Everyone should, I think, strive to maintain an inclusive circle of friends. It's especially important to learn to deal socially with people of both genders, and this is an essential skill in a gender-integrated society such as ours. Anyone growing up in the Western world will likely have both female and male co-workers, male and female social acquaintances, female and male mentors, and so on. More broadly, it's good to get to know people from a wide range of gender, social, geographical, ethnic, political, religious, and economic backgrounds. Human beings are diverse, and when we enrich our social circle we enrich ourselves. And young adulthood isn't a bad place to begin - I said begin - this process.

But that isn't really the issue for Ruth Peters and the concerned mom.
Try talking with your son in order to understand his motivation as to why his friends all seem to be girls. If he is lacking in self-confidence when dealing with guys, help him to understand the basis of this problem and to put it in proper perspective. If he was teased years ago for lack of athletic ability, that may not be as important now as a teenager. In addition, he may have developed a new interest or skill that would now enhance his importance in a group of guys but he hasn't yet realized that he can use this new skill to develop male friendships.

Pathologizing again. How about this novel concept: "Try talking to you son ... and then JUST LISTEN." That's right, just listen without projecting your own phobias on the kid.
Another type of situation in which I see boys maintaining most friendships with girls is, of course, that they are very attracted to the opposite sex. Although having a girlfriend as a teenager can be exciting and a ticket to popularity, your son needs to learn how to set limits upon this behavior. Not only am I suggesting setting sexual limits, but also acknowledging that having a girlfriend tends to be a distracting, time-consuming affair which can take precedence over completing chores and studying.

Balance, again, is key — he needs to learn that other things in life are of equal importance as having a bunch of girls to hang around with.

Let's read that last sentence again (and we'll try to ignore the atrocious grammar):
... he needs to learn that other things in life are of equal importance as having a bunch of girls to hang around with.

Here, Dr. Peters has finally answered the question: Yes, there IS a problem, because the boy's friendships are a sign that there is something "he needs to learn". Once again, she is zealous in finding all the things that might be "wrong" with this poor boy's life.
In addition, he may find that guys cease to be friends with him if he focuses most of his time on the ladies. When his relationships break up, your son’s guy friends may not be there to buoy his spirits or to help him recover from his lost love. It may be a good idea to bring these issues to his attention now so he can begin to regain some balance in his life.

... "Balance" that, in the estimable Dr. Peters' judgment, he clearly lacks. But wait! There's one more possibility.
A third reason why some teenage boys tend to surround themselves with girls as friends is that they are questioning their sexual identity. Be cautious about jumping to this conclusion, as your child may be comfortable with a heterosexual lifestyle. However, some teen boys find that they are much more comfortable with girls their age — they may be able to relate better conversationally, and they are not distracted or threatened by sexual feelings if their friends were boys. If this is the case, I hope that your son can begin to discuss his sexual identity conflicts with you, and I do hope that you are supportive of his feelings. He may be convinced that he is gay, or perhaps confused due to feelings of attraction that he’s had toward members of the same sex. If he desires, counseling may help him to clarify his feelings, to see that he is accepted by his family regardless of sexual orientation and to be able to keep this aspect of his personality in balance with responsibilities found at home and at school.

If there's an award among advice columnists for "breaking the bad news slowly", Dr. Peters ought to get it for this paragraph. Credit where due, she senses that her correspondent might just be, well, a teeensy bit uptight about the boy's sexual identity. So to avoid scaring the poor woman, she bends over backwards to avoid saying, "Y'know, hon, your son might be gay." But she does ask the mother, ever so gently, to be "supportive of his feelings." Good.

The fourth possibility, which Dr. Peters overlooks, is that the young person may be transgendered or differently gendered. He may identify with girls more than with boys; he may enjoy female friendships because he feels he has more in common with girls than with boys, or because their companionship, friendship, and respect are the things he values. In short, he may be physically male but psychologically female. That is, transgender or transsexual. But that's an eventuality that even the ever-so-broad-minded Ruth Peters is unwilling to confront.

Whether or not this is the case, he will not be helped by adults' contemptuous attitudes toward "having a bunch of girls to hang around with." Whether these two women recognize it or not, the boy's ability to form platonic friendships with girls is a wonderful thing. He will be less likely to engage in sexist or predatory behavior against women, because he will think of women as friends rather than sex objects. But if he's condemned for "hanging out with a bunch of girls", he will scarcely be learning respect for women.

Why is it still so easy for people in our culture - even educated, intelligent women like Dr. Peters - to devalue the role of females and female friendships? Are girls simply worth less than boys? Or is it a fear of transgressing socially assigned gender constraints? Sadly, sexist attitudes may be internalized by women, just as (for example) gays may internalize homophobia, or Jews anti-Semitism. And it's also true that much of the older generation is still carrying, subconsciously, centuries-long prejudices against people who do not conform to their socially assigned gender.

Social conservatives are not wrong when they recognize that, for most of the population, traditional gender roles are reasonably comfortable and meaningful. No one should expect women to stop being women or men to stop being men. In fact, the early feminist movement bears the blame for denying the existence of innate gender identity altogether, and thus muddying the debate for a whole generation. Nor do I dispute for a moment that there also exists such a thing as "misandry", or reverse sexism, among both men and women who have been overdosed on a certain kind of feminist dogma. The existence of one kind of prejudice does not negate or cancel the other. It is certainly true that "women and men are different"; it is also true that people are different, each one of us a unique individual.

Self-acceptance is the first step toward personal responsibility. When I can say, "I am not you, I am different from you", then I can acknowledge that you and I do not have to be identical to be worthy of one another's respect. I often hear today's "liberals" say things like, "I know you're Jewish/gay/black/evangelical/whatever, but it doesn't matter to me." This is the most illiberal thing we can possibly say - it's saying "I have to overlook an essential part of your identity for you to be OK". It's denying that we can embrace diversity as a positive thing.

When we acknowledge all of who we are, we acknowledge all of our potential for good and evil. If we are gay, we reject the idea that our love is a "disease" and embrace the responsibility of a committed relationship with another person. If we are differently gendered, we welcome the gift of seeing across the void between "Venus" and "Mars", and we reject sexism in all its forms.

I've been quoting Dr. Peters' column in full because I want you to know that I am not "cherry-picking" her words to support a particular viewpoint. You should also know that I don't mean to single out one columnist; I have no doubt that Dr. Peters is a fine, compassionate person and highly competent in her field. The attitudes I've criticized are widely shared and socially respectable among educated, "liberal" people. It is part of the broader problem of a liberal establishment so self-satisfied that it is blind to its own prejudices. (And conversely, some of the most open-minded people I've known have been housewives, combat soldiers, conservative bloggers, recovering addicts, and Orthodox rabbis.)

Here is
Dr. Peters’ Bottom Line: If your son is like many teens, he may meet your concerns with eye-rolling, a heavy sigh and an attitude that suggests that you're just not in tune with today’s kids. By asking him questions, getting to know his friends and staying open to all possibilities, perhaps he’ll feel more comfortable in expressing his concerns or helping you to understand what it’s like walking in his shoes. Be patient, supportive and available so that he’ll begin to open up to you and perhaps heed some of your advice.

And here's my bottom line: The kid's OK. Period. If his biggest problem is having mostly female friends, you should consider yourself the envy of a great many mothers of teenagers. He may have special challenges: If girls in his age group relate to him as a friend or "girl friend", then they may not see him as "dating material". Many straight women are not romantically attracted to men who are feminine, effeminate, or otherwise strongly female-identified - and we shouldn't expect them to be. But people are not all alike. (Of course, if he is gay, then none of this is a problem!) And then again, he may just be a regular straight guy who gets along well with girls, end of story. If your son can learn to interact socially with people of all genders, if he can respect himself and behave responsibly and compassionately toward others, if he can earn his place in the world and form a committed intimate relationship with another person - you should not ask for more than that. G-d created humankind, male and female, in the Divine image.

2005-09-06

Two of the best conservative bloggers on the internet ...

... are in rare form. Sherri Reese has a cool new spot called Bring Your Brain. (Update your browser!) She has a terrific post on individual responsibility. And don't miss LaShawn Barber. You'll have to wait for her post on Katrina, but you can catch her piece on non-citizens and the law now. Go check it out.

Moussa Arafat Killed

Moussa Arafat, nephew of the late Palestinian strongman Yasser Arafat, was killed today by Palestinian gunmen. Arafat was a chief rival of Palestinian Authority leader Abu Mazen. Debka reports:
Before dawn Wednesday, Sept 7, dozens of armed Palestinians burst into the home of the former chief of Palestinian military intelligence, nephew of the late Yasser Arafat and one of Abu Mazen’s main opponents. They killed him after a gun battle with his bodyguards.

According to some reports the gang abducted his son. The assassination of one of Gaza’s strongmen marks the onset of the Gaza Strip's armed contest for power between the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and the Popular Committees, which were part of Arafat’s power base. Reprisals are expected.

Stay tuned here for more as this develops.

"I had never even heard of him until a couple of days ago ...

...and I don’t ever want to hear about him again." So says Michael Totten of FEMA's head idiot in charge, Michael Brown; and so should you. Michael Brown needs to be fired. Just in case there's any doubt in your mind, go read MJT's post.

UPDATE: Mythusmage opines that "termination doesn't go far enough" - FEMA should be abolished. And that's just the beginning. Read the post.

Yahoo! Collaborates with Chinese Communist Fascism

Yahoo turned a Chinese dissident in to the Beijing regime's thugs, according to an RSF item posted at Roger L. Simon and Instapundit.

Roger quotes Reporters Without Borders:
The text of the verdict in the case of journalist Shi Tao - sentenced in April to 10 years in prison for "divulging state secrets abroad" - shows that Yahoo ! Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd. provided China's state security authorities with details that helped to identify and convict him, Reporters Without Borders said today.

"We already knew that Yahoo ! collaborates enthusiastically with the Chinese regime in questions of censorship, and now we know it is a Chinese police informant as well," the press freedom organisation said.

"Yahoo ! obviously complied with requests from the Chinese authorities to furnish information regarding an IP address that linked Shi Tao to materials posted online, and the company will yet again simply state that they just conform to the laws of the countries in which they operate," the organisation said. "But does the fact that this corporation operates under Chinese law free it from all ethical considerations ? How far will it go to please Beijing ?"

Reporters Without Borders added : "Information supplied by Yahoo ! led to the conviction of a good journalist who has paid dearly for trying to get the news out. It is one thing to turn a blind eye to the Chinese government's abuses and it is quite another thing to collaborate." ...

Read the whole thing at the link. Bloggers, remember: Do not expect the corporate interests to protect you from the oppressors.

Oh, and just for a morbid laugh, here is Yahoo!'s "core value" on Customer Focus:
Customer Fixation:
We respect our customers above all else and never forget that they come to us by choice. We share a personal responsibility to maintain our customers' loyalty and trust. We listen and respond to our customers and seek to exceed their expectations.

Yeah.

Iran Report

Russia rejects reporting Iran to Security Council. Financial Times reports:
Russia on Monday ruled out an early decision to report the Iran nuclear controversy to the United Nations Security Council, undermining US and European efforts to build international consensus for a diplomatic reprimand this month.

A senior Kremlin official said Iran had not violated the rules of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Its nuclear programme, he said, should continue to be dealt with at the governing board of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, without involving the Security Council.

Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, adopted a more cautious approach in a meeting with foreign journalists and academics. He did not exclude a future referral to New York, though not at this point, and said it would have be done “in a very precise form”. ...


Man hanged in connection with killing of security forces. Quoting Iran Focus, Free Iran reports:
Tehran, Iran, Sep. 04 – An Iranian man was hanged in the town of Iranshahr, in Iran’s south-eastern Baluchistan Province, a semi-official daily reported on Sunday.

The man, identified as Houshang Bameri, was hanged at 9 am Saturday morning, the hard-line Jomhouri Islami wrote. He was accused of killing two para-military security agents.

Baluchistan Province, home to Iran’s minority Baluchis, has witnessed a string of clashes between government troops and insurgents in recent months. Baluchis, unlike Iran’s Shiite clerical rulers, adhere to the Sunni branch of Islam.


The regime's strategy. Mohammed at Iraq the Model offers this analysis of the Iranian regime's game plan:
Why is Iran choosing to defy the world with all the present dangers of a military reaction if Iran kept pushing things to the edge?

Does Iran want to develop nuclear power for peaceful utilization?

If that was the case then the European offer is very reasonable and I find it generous and it cannot be claimed (without raising suspicions) that this offer doesn't meet the needs for a peaceful program. Not only that, it even guarantees better support than if Iran depended on its own capabilities as Europe will be contributing with her nuclear expertise…but Iran refused the offer.

Does Iran want to get nuclear weapons?
Why not? The nuclear military power's been the ultimate dream the leaders of the region who want to protect their regimes from any possible plans of change and to have the ability to attack their enemies.

But Iran realizes the idea that there are many countries out there that are going to stop her from possessing nukes and once some countries feel that Iran is too close to getting the weapons, they will no doubt take the move and destroy the infrastructure of the nuclear program and Israel is a strong candidate for conducting the mission here. It's fundamental that a strike with conventional, high precision weapons that are available for many countries is enough to destroy the Iranian dream without the least defensive response from Iran who lacks the practical ability of defending the nuclear facilities.

So both of the above theories put Iran before an irrational choice as the current escalation doesn't indicate peaceful Iranian intentions and at the same time in contradicts Iran's defensive abilities…so why escalate?

I think that Iran is seeking a limited confrontation and Iran is calculating the possible gains and losses well in this confrontation and the results expected by the regime there are:

1-Having the Iranian nuclear facilities destroyed.
2-Preparing the country for a take over by the extremists; in the way despotic regimes make their calculations, the resultant is positive.

Iran thinks that this is not the appropriate time for the super powers to invade and change the regime in Tehran since the situation in Iraq doesn't encourage making such a move.

And if Iran waited until the situation resolves in Iraq before taking critical steps like resuming the nuclear program then that escalation will impose greater threats on the regime itself not only the nuclear facilities while an escalation at the moment will result in limited reaction from the world limited to as much as destroying the facilities only while giving the regime the chance to halt any remaining sign of the struggling weak democracy in Iran; the nuclear facilities will serve just like the 'Mill' in Orwell's "Animal Farm".

This scenario is not far from what we’ve seen in Iraq; Saddam challenged the world after facing growing internal crises which made him export his problems to Kuwait.
He was seeking a confrontation with the whole world in an incomprehensible way that looked literally like suicide but Saddam like any other tyrant knew the results; losing Kuwait but gaining the "legitimate" right to silent any voice of internal opposition since the country is under external threats making any opposition look like treason. And that stage will be the worst timing for starting an opposition movement while the government is calling for "national unity" to face the foreign threats.

Iran will push for a confrontation and whatever is proposed will not be viewed as convincing to Iran which will put [before the world two] ways to choose from, either a limited confrontation that prolongs the lifetime of the regime and grants it more power on the inside OR success in possessing the nuclear weapons before the world makes the practical measures to stop Iran and Tehran is not willing to take a third option.

Doctor Zin at Regime Change Iran agrees: 'An important analysis. It is consisent with my theory that the Bush administration is pursuing a third way, convincing the international community to support read democracy in Iran, i.e. internal regime change.'

BUY THE BOOK "LIVING IN HELL" BY GHAZAL OMID - the story of an Iranian woman's struggle against oppression.

From Around the Blogosphere

Alison Bechdel is a talented cartoonist and blogger. Go check out her current posts for her views on Katrina and the aftermath. (And Alison, please accept my humble apologies for my meltdown in your comments the other day. My rhetoric was way over the line.)

Already mentioned, MJ at Friday Fishwrap is doing her part as a volunteer. Grace Davis posts on her friend Badgerbag who is also volunteering.

Beth Mauldin is volunteering too.

Judith at Kesher Talk has a post on Federal, State, and Local Spheres ... and a donor who somehow got overlooked.

Michelle Malkin quotes more Republican attacks on FEMA stupidity.

One Fine Jay has a list of RINO sightings, including Dean's list of a few politicians who should be held accountable.

2005-09-05

Portland Coffee House, Trinity

I'm liveblogging from Portland Coffee House on Trinity Place. It's independently owned and easily the best coffee shop in the neighborhood. It used to be part of the Portland Coffee House chain of about four or five locations, but the owner decided he was getting out of the business and spun off the various outlets. PCH Trinity was bought by a very nice young couple who are expecting their second child any day now.

The owners and baristas (yes, the place really merits that highfaluten term) are dedicated and knowledgeable. The shop always has a crowd of fun young people (and a few old farts like me). And the coffee is absolutely first-rate!

PCH Trinity is currently open from 6:30am to 2:30am (yes, you read that right) every day. They're planning to go 24/7 soon, which is a very big deal in Portland because there aren't many 24-hour shops in town. The decor is uber-cool and there's always good music playing in the background. And don't miss the local art on display.

So if you live here, or if you're visiting town and you want to experience a bit of Northwestern decadence, check out PCH Trinity. It's located at 1951 West Burnside, at the corner of Trinity Place. (That's the street that runs between NW 19th and NW 20th Avenues. I call it Avenue Nineteen and a Half.) It's across from Panda Express and next door to Tony's Tavern. (There's a gay bar just up the block, too, if you're so inclined.) * The phone number is 503-248-2133. *

And yes, PCH Trinity has wi-fi. Stop by for a cup of coffee or a bite to eat. Say hi to Brian, the manager, and all the nice folks there. Mention Dreams Into Lightning if you want. Oh, and if you see a mysterious figure in a ponytail and a black beret, it might just be me.

CORRECTION: Please disregard the phone number which previously appeared in this post. It is incorrect and belongs to a private residence. THE CORRECT NUMBER IS 503-248-2133.

Tears

Dr. Laua's Worst Nightmare defends politicians' right to be emotional every now and then. I absolutely agree. Our leaders are as human as we are, and whatever their strengths or weaknesses may be, for heaven's sake let's not deny them this most basic gifr of humanity. I have said this before in connection with President Bush and I'll say it again here - and I'll add that this proves that (contrary to what I suggested before) insensitivity isn't confined to one part of the political spectrum. Judge leaders by their actions - not their feelings.

2005-09-04

Baghdad Tragedy

Hameed, a personal friend and frequent commenter at Iraq the Model, has lost a family member in the recent bridge stampede in Baghdad: his 42-year-old nephew was killed. Hameed's sister is devastated. Hameed says he will be leaving London (where he lives) to visit with the rest of the family.

My prayers and sympathy are with the victims of this tragedy as well.

2005-09-02

A Ray of Hope

At long last, humanitarian relief aid arrives in New Orleans, Louisiana in the wake of hurricane Katrina:
On the day President Bush visited this devastated city, thousands of tired and angry people stranded at the convention center welcomed National Guard troops and trucks carrying food, water and medicine with cheers and tears of joy.

"The crowd erupted," said Tishia Walters, a woman in the convention center crowd told CNN by telephone.

"Flags went flying, people shouting and waving. There's like 7,000 people out here in dying conditions," she added.

Walters said she was outside of the center when she saw the National Guard and police arrive.

"It's amazing. They've come in full force," she said.

Lt. Gen. Russel Honore was directing the deployment of National Guard troops -- expected to number 1,000 -- from a New Orleans street corner. ...


Greyhawk (via e-mail) has this roundup of important links:
Useful public service request - help spread the word.

http://www.dod.mil/home/features/2005/katrina/index.html - contact info for military families displaced by Katrina (also a great collection of news releases on the military efforts in hurricane relief)

http://www.guardfamily.org/ - info for Guard families impacted by the storm.

http://www.gxonline.com/gxintelnews?id=24147 - info for getting deployed Guard members in touch with their families who might be displaced by the storm - and vice versa.

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/003484.html I compiled them here, but it's more important to get folks to those other pages. Feel free to ignore this one.


A Small Victory wins a small victory:
I'm trying to catch up on my email, I have a zillion mails from people who want to help out with the school supplies - I have Trish organizing things in Houston, please email me contact info if you want to help out there. I am in serious need of help in Baton Rouge, I have only Dave there so far. And thanks to everyone who put money in the PayPal, and I'll mention it again for those who are emailing asking how to donate school supplies if they aren't in my area:

My Paypal button is on the left sidebar. If you donate, I will use the money to purchase school supplies to put on the truck. Simple as that. You have to trust a complete stranger with your money, yes - but I think a lot of readers will vouch for me, I've done things like this before. ...


Ready for some good news yet? I know I am. Michele has it here.

Have a good weekend. See you next week.

Katrina: The Unnatural Disaster

I'm not going to waste space on people who want to blame the Gulf Coast tragedy on the liberation of Iraq or on Bush's magical ability to cause hurricanes. There are too many important questions that need to be asked about the Government's response - or lack of it - to hurricane Katrina.

Aziz Poonawalla at Dean Esmay hits it when he says
Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent flooding of NOLA were the first, "natural" disaster to strike our nation this week. I have argued that the Administration and the President in particular cannot be blamed for this in my last post ...

The second disaster this week however has been "un-natural" - or rather, self-inflicted. It's the humanitarian disaster unfolding now, a situation which a full five days after the hurricane still shows no sign of amelioration. ...

The unnatural disaster is the proper subject of political scrutiny. Here are some posts from around the blogosphere:

LaShawn Barber tears the President a new one:
...We voted Bush in office because we thought he’d clean up the joint and restore the honor it once had. But every time we turn around we see Clinton with a tin cup asking “the American people” for money.
...
Second, why, someone please tell me, is our federal government so unprepared and inept? It’s been four days since the storm ended, and people are still without food and water. Dead bodies are sitting on the side of the road. Can you imagine, God forbid it, if Islamofascists decided to unleash whatever bombs they have? I’m not talking about terrorist thugs coming into the country; I’m talking about the ones already here, the Allah-loving America haters we foolishly let in.

It’s been almost 4 years since 9/11. We’ve spent BILLIONS of dollars on so-called homeland security. We watched in disgusted amazement when Bush created yet another federal agency, but we thought he knew what he was doing.
...
I’m seething with rage, and if I could have five minutes alone with George Bush, I’d start by telling him what I think of his boy Clinton, a man who disgraced the office of the presidency and embarrassed this country, and what I think of him for thrusting him upon the American people. Then I’d tell him how inept I think the “war on terrorism” is and ask him why he’s so afraid of the media....

Liberals hate George Bush, and no matter what he does, they’ll use anything and anyone to get at him. I don’t hate the man. I voted for him. I want him to succeed, but more than that, I want to be safe, feel safe, and I don’t. The federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina has been an epic and humiliating embarrassment. ...

I know, I know…George Bush is only one man, but the Democrats are circling in the water. They’re going to have his head for this, for all the wrong reasons, of course, but I won’t be lifting a finger to defend him. ...

Grace Davis wants to know:
...HOW IN THE WORLD I CANNOT POINT MY SHAKING FINGER AT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOR THEIR DISGRACEFUL NON-RESPONSE TO AMERICAN CITIZENS IN NEED?

This blatant dismissal of human beings, American citizens, stashed like animals in the Superdome, this situation which has been covered 24 hours non stop on the major news sources since the beginning of the week, the federal government did not even know about this until yesterday?

Are you fucking kidding me?

So come on, tell me how not to blame and politicize. How I can't tell these asshats SHAME ON ALL OF YOU.


Ron Fournier thru Rich Lowry at The Corner:
Just last year, the Army Corps of Engineers sought $105 million for hurricane and flood programs in New Orleans. The White House slashed the request to about $40 million. Congress finally approved $42.2 million, less than half of the agency's request.

Yet the lawmakers and Bush agreed to a $286.4 billion pork-laden highway bill that included more than 6,000 pet projects for lawmakers. Congress spent money on dust control for Arkansas roads, a warehouse on the Erie Canal and a $231 million bridge to a small, uninhabited Alaskan island.

How could Washington spend $231 million on a bridge to nowhere - and not find $42 million for hurricane and flood projects in New Orleans? It's a matter of power and politics.

Alaska is represented by Republican Rep. Don Young, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, and Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, a senior member of the all-important Senate Appropriations Committee. Louisiana's delegation holds far less sway.

Source: Ron Fournier at My Way.

Pseudo-Adrienne at Alas asks:
"why the fuck is it taking so long to get these people some serious help and aid?" And I sympathize with the mayor of New Orleans and his anger directed towards the Federal government and their apparent 'slowness' to respond.
...
Another unavoidable issue brought to light by the coverage of the devastation and those hardest-hit by Katrina, is the race plus socioeconomic status issue. Once again the media has whether intentionally or unintentionally cited how much race tied in with socioeconomic status plays a roll in our society and *still matters*, especially when it comes to such disasters as hurricanes that devastates certain segments of our society more so than others.

Read the whole post at the link, including the excerpts from David Corn's article at The Nation. And if you haven't done so, follow Pseudo-Adrienne's link to the Red Cross.

Cicero at Winds of Change has this to say about expectations:
I was a single-issue voter in the last election. I voted for President Bush because I felt he was right about Iraq, and more fundamentally, about our security. I overlooked just about everything else that I disliked about his presidency on that single issue.

Since 9/11, President Bush has made a compelling case that we need to rebuild our security mechanisms, at home and abroad. The Department of Homeland Security was formed here at home, and we were put on a war footing abroad. I believe that this is sensible given the levels of terror threats that we face. Unfortunately, I had to turn away from my own party to vote for someone who I believed took my nation's security more seriously.

I think there were a lot of Ciceros at the 2004 polls -- security-minded Democrats who voted for President Bush. As that kind of voter, I am having trouble with what I see going on in New Orleans.

After all the emphasis the Bush Administration has placed on this nation's security, exporting freedom abroad to Iraq, and the dire warnings about WMDs on our soil, my expectation in the era of terror -- the era of holding back chaos -- is that the Bush Administration can thwart chaos effectively. On the Federal level. That's what the game plan has been for the last five years: The Federal Government has stepped in with huge spending increases to prepare the United States for the chaos of terrorism. It has been a nationalized priority, costing billions.

New Orleans is devolving into anarchy, death, pillage and disease, nearly five days after Hurricane Katrina came ashore. Things appear to be improving only incrementally. Clearly, this is a crisis of unprecedented magnitude, with immense logistical challenges. It is reasonable to ask, however, if for the last five years the 'anti-chaos' mechanisms that have been put into place are as effective as advertised.

The Bush administration's credibility is on the line. ...



That's all I have for now on Katrina and the unnatural disaster. I'll post more next week.