Morning Report: September 13, 2005

Brown resigns as head of FEMA. CNN: 'Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Mike Brown resigned Monday after coming under fire over his qualifications and for what critics call a bungled response to Hurricane Katrina's destruction. President Bush chose David Paulison, the director of FEMA's preparedness division, as interim director, the White House announced.' (CNN)

Rice: Legacy of racism. CNN: 'Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the people who were stranded in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina are evidence that race and poverty can still come together "in a very ugly way" in parts of the "Old South." "The United States should want to do something about that," Rice said in an interview Monday with the editorial board of The New York Times. "There are still places that race and poverty are a huge problem in the United States, and we've got to deal with that." ' (CNN)

Batebi on Iranian regime. Free Iran posts an interview by The Scotsman with fugitive Iranian dissident Ahmed Batebi. The college student became an icon of the Iranian resistance when he was photographed holding a friend's bloodied T-shirt; he now lives on the run. Batebi is sharply critical of the European Union's accomodationist stance toward the IRI regime: '"Everyone knows how much the EU's wheelings and dealings with Iran have strengthened the lifeblood of the Mullahs," he says. "The majority of people see the EU as allied to the government of Iran and usually as contradicting in spirit what the US might do. They think that the EU is mainly looking after its short-term economic interests, rather than democracy." ' (The Scotsman via Free Iran)

Corrupt of the Earth

Miriam, the lesbian, had been branded "corrupt of the earth" by religious police in her homeland. I ran video footage smuggled from Iran to prove what would have happened to her if she'd stayed and been arrested. The tape showed two women, bundled alive in white sheets, being lowered into freshly dug pits. A mob of men and boys gathered around them and began to hurl fist-sized stones at their heads. Most hit the mark and bounced off to reveal crimson spurting from the material. Miriam explained that, by law, every rock-hurler was supposed to tuck a Koran under his arm to restrain the force fo the blow. That decree didn't always stick. Still fearing for her life, Miriam told her story in silhoutette. - The Trouble with Islam Today

"I told them not to talk about their dreams."

He told me a year ago: "I saw in a dream, we were playing a soccer game against the Americans. When our team showed up in the field, they were all pilots!" ...

We were at a camp of one of the brother's guards in Qandahar. This brother belonged to the majority of the group. He came close and told me that he saw, in a dream, a tall building in America, and in the same dream he saw Mukhtar teaching them how to play karate. At that point, I was worried that maybe the secret would be revealed if everyone starts seeing it in their dream. So I closed the subject. I told him if he sees another dream, not to tell anybody ...

- Osama bin Laden

When someone tells you not to talk about your dreams, do not listen.

Each of us bears inside a spark of the Divinity. We each carry a small piece of our Creator's vision for us. When we listen to this inner voice and find the courage to share it with others, and when we find the courage to listen to other people's visions without prejudice, we begin to weave the great web of humanity's collective dream. Those who would shut down this process are the ones who would kill our right to dream. They are the enemies of humanity.

On one occasion, only days before the Shah left Iran, Khomeini's minions made the shocking statement that Khomeini's image was on the moon. We all gathered on the roof. I was a child, uninfluenced by the hysteria of politics, and kept asking, Where is the image? Adults from all walks of life gazed at the moon's pockmarked face and everyone started saying, "Yes, there he is. He is on the moon, can you see him?" pointing at the same pimples on the moon's face that have been there for over four billion years. Some even shed tears of joy and bowed and prayed, declaring that God himself sent Khomeini and that is why his image appeared on the moon. - "Living in Hell" by Ghazal Omid

Here is what happens when people allow themselves to be brainwashed by political elites or by the mass media. In extreme cases they can be persuaded to commit atrocities against others, believing that they will gain Paradise as a reward. As Ghazal Omid says in the Introduction, "These brainwashed individuals have been promised Utopia, not recognizing that it was the face of Satan who appeared to them, not promises from the Angel Gabriel."

In the summer of 1963, an American pro-democracy leader named Martin Luther King addressed a quarter of a million freedom activists in the nation's capital. A hundred years earlier, America's bloodiest war had broken the back of the slave regime, but equality under the law still eluded African Americans. He called on activists to demand payment on an old promissory note, and to reject "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism." He warned against bitterness, hatred, and despair. In his famous peroration, he declared: "I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream." Creatively interweaving the language of the Biblical prophets with his own message, he spelled out a vision of a world where the dream of freedom and justice would be fulfilled. No one can say that Dr. King's dream has yet been fully realized in America. But to deny the great strides that have been made since then would be to deny the achievements of brave activists like Dr. King and his followers.

You, too, have a dream. It is uniquely yours, buried within the depths of your soul. And while your dream is unique, you have the chance to share it with other people and to learn of their dreams. This is the kind of dreaming that leads to a world where people speak and listen to one another with respect and without fear.

When I was in my mid-teens, my mother gave me some books on Jewish spirituality and mysticism - called the Kabbalah in Hebrew - which would become an important step in my own spiritual journey. Here, Rabbi Lawrence Kushner draws a parallel between understanding sacred Scripture and understanding a dream:

1. Begin with that most difficult and subtle question of all ... what is the underlying emotional dynamic of the story?
2. Recall our own recent, immediate experiences. Since dreams are often initiated by something that happened only recently, we must ask about yesterday's residue.
3. Isolate and identify the primary elements of the dream text before us. What are the dream's components?
4. Pay especially close attention to the seemingly trivial details and the little discrepancies.
5. We must not allow embarrassment to distract attention from elements that make us uncomfortable.
6. If this Scripture dream is actually ours, then our associations are also relevant. Often, they will be of only personal validity, but at other times they will open new dimensions of understanding as compelling as those of commentators of old.
7. Assume full responsibility for the dream. For "through the dream the man makes the matter his own; it is in his will, and he is responsible for it." [Johannes Pedersen, Israel.] ... We are responsible for the evil impulses of our dreams.
8. The dream can condense opposites into one truth.
9. The many selves, who together comprise the one self, are separate. ... We must therefore be all the parts of our dream.
10. Through the dream/Scripture we slip back to our origins. Through that infinity of meanings we return to the undifferentiated ness of all existence. ... This is the great dream of which each individual dream is a personal manifestation.
- excerpted from "The River of Light" by Lawrence Kushner

What I like about this approach is that it calls on us to take our visions seriously - and responsibly. It asks us to be true to our individual visions, but also to seek common ground with the visions of others. It recognizes that absolute truth belongs to the Creator alone, but that the search for truth belongs to all of us together. Muslim activist Irshad Manji draws the following lessons from her Islamic studies:

After so much exploring, my personal interpretation of the Koran leads me to three recurring messages. First, only God knows fully the truth of anything. Second, God alone can punish unbelievers, which makes sense given that only God knows what true unbelief is. (And considering the Koran's mountain range of moods, it really would take the Almighty to know how it all hangs together.) Human beings must warn against corrupt practices, but that's all we can do to encourage piety. Third, our resulting humility sets us free to ponder God's will - without any obligation to toe a dictated line. "Let there be no compulsion in religion," states a voice in Chapter 2 of the Koran. "Unto you your religion, unto me my religion," echoes another voice in Chapter 109. In between, there's this: "If God had pleased, He would have made you all one people. But He has done otherwise..." Ain't that the truth.
- "The Trouble with Islam Today" by Irshad Manji

The war that was declared on America on September 11, 2001, was a war against dreams. It was a war of brainwashing against inquiry, tyranny against democracy, enslavement against freedom. We won't win this war by force of arms alone. Our most important weapons are the weapons of the spirit - the "soul force" that Dr. King spoke of. Physical tools like the internet are of great value, especially when we use them to reclaim control of our minds and engage in open discussion with one another - here we are wresting our right to dream back away from the propaganda masters who would kill it. But most importatnt, we must reach out to one another in real life. We will win the war against fascism by speaking our dreams to one another face-to-face, and by finding common ground with the dreams of our neighbors. We must find the courage and the humility to go onward, remembering that we ourselves are but the dream of God.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

One more thing about disasters and politics.

I meant what I said here, and what I said goes for the Right as well as the Left. I notice some pro-Bush bloggers are posting lists along the lines of "look at all the off-the-wall comments those lefty moonbats are making". That, too, is politicizing the tragedy. It's counterproductive. Getting bogged down in this kind of game is a waste of time and resources.

People who choose to give, and are able to do so, will give. I hope you are one of them. Those who choose not to will have their own rationalizations; forget them. Just do what you have to do and move on.

Red Cross
list of relief agencies at Instapundit


PS - Gay Orbit gives a salute to MoveOn.org for its Hurricane Housing program. As Gay Orbit says, "This is not a partisan disaster."

"Where are the Guardsmen?"

It's a reasonable question. James S. Robbins has some answers at NRO:

So is the war in Iraq causing troop shortfalls for hurricane relief in New Orleans?

In a word, no.

A look at the numbers should dispel that notion. Take the Army for example. There are 1,012,000 soldiers on active duty, in the Reserves, or in the National Guard. Of them, 261,000 are deployed overseas in 120 countries. Iraq accounts for 103,000 soldiers, or 10.2 percent of the Army.

That’s all? Yes, 10.2 percent. That datum is significant in itself, a good one to keep handy the next time someone talks about how our forces are stretched too thin, our troops are at the breaking point, and so forth. If you add in Afghanistan (15,000) and the support troops in Kuwait (10,000) you still only have 12.6 percent.

So where are the rest? 751,000 (74.2 percent) are in the U.S. About half are active duty, and half Guard and Reserve. The Guard is the real issue of course — the Left wants you to believe that the country has been denuded of its citizen soldiers, and that Louisiana has suffered inordinately because Guardsmen and women who would have been available to be mobilized by the state to stop looting and aid in reconstruction are instead risking their lives in Iraq.

Not hardly. According to Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, 75 percent of the Army and Air National Guard are available nationwide. In addition, the federal government has agreed since the conflict in Iraq started not to mobilize more than 50 percent of Guard assets in any given state, in order to leave sufficient resources for governors to respond to emergencies.

In Louisiana only about a third of Guard personnel are deployed, and they will be returning in about a week as part of their normal rotation. ...

Read it all at the link.

UPDATE: Let me add a couple of comments. I think Robbins' article in defense of the Guard deployments is good as far as it goes, but I don't want to just leave the issue here. Whether NG strength is diminished by a third, a quarter, or a tenth, it is nevertheless inescapable that every National Guardsman serving in Iraq is one National Guardsman not serving in the Continental United States. Every troop dedicated to the just and necessary war on terrorism and fascism is a troop deducted from the aggregate number of troops available for domestic emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina. In short, a glass half empty is still half empty.

James Robbins' numbers make me feel a little better, but we still need to address Americans' legitimate concerns about domestic security. I'll post more on this next week.