American hostage Roy Hallums is free! Details at Jawa Report.

Posted by: annika at 08:17 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Today's poem is by a Trappist monk of the Strict Observance, the late Thomas Merton. My experience reading the poem mirrors my own flirtations with serenity a few years back. Every time i think i get it, it slips away. Ultimately, i just give up.

When in the soul of the serene disciple

When in the soul of the serene disciple
With no more Fathers to imitate
Poverty is a success,
It is a small thing to say the roof is gone:
He has not even a house.

Stars, as well as friends,
Are angry with the noble ruin.
Saints depart in several directions.

Be still:
There is no longer any need of comment.
It was a lucky wind
That blew away his halo with his cares,
A lucky sea that drowned his reputation.

Here you will find
Neither a proverb nor a memorandum.
There are no ways,
No methods to admire
Where poverty is no achievement.
His God lives in his emptiness like an affliction.

What choice remains?
Well, to be ordinary is not a choice:
It is the usual freedom
Of men without visions.

Posted by: annika at 07:26 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

It's a delicate subject, and i try not to write much about it. A white person always runs the risk of being called a racist, no matter what they say. Usually it happens when white people say that charges of racism are exagerrated or without merit. In the case of this post, i should be safe, because i plan to be the one making the charges.

i've noticed a special kind of subtle bigotry, very cleverly disguised. The folks who exhibit this new bigotry probably don't even realize their bias, and they'd probably deny it vehemently. The purveyors of the new bigotry that i'm talking about are mostly in the media and the academy.

A more obvious example that has gotten play recently is the infamous looting/finding controversy that arose from the troubles in New Orleans.

[T]wo news service photographs . . . showed persons wading through chest-deep water in the New Orleans area with supplies taken from grocery stores. Many viewers noticed the seeming disparity of the darker-skinned subject's being described in the accompanying caption as 'looting a grocery store,' while the lighter-skinned subjects were described as 'finding bread and soda from a local grocery store.'

Still, i've noticed another type of more subtle bigotry lately. It's the condescending "some of my best friends are black" kind of bigotry that Time magazine showed, when they called Kanye West the "smartest man in pop music," and put him on the cover of their magazine.

Besides trying to show how hip they were, Time magazine's editors were also asking for approval with their backhanded compliment. Translated, what they meant to say was: "Look how non-racist we are. See, we think a black man can be smart too." Never mind that they picked a complete moron for their cover, as we saw last Friday. (And i'm making a totally non-partisan, objective observation. If articulation counts for anything, as the anti-Bush crowd continually tells us, Kanye is as dumb as a stump.)

A more obvious example to me is the way people in the media and academia so often refer to Martin Luther King, Jr. as Dr. King. When was the last time you heard a white guy with a Ph.D. referred to as Doctor so-and-so. You never hear anyone say Dr. Woodrow Wilson, for instance, and he was president of Princeton. Or how about Dr. Einstein? Or even Dr. Gingrich?

But you always hear people say "Doctor" King, which sounds so condescending. First of all there should be no question about MLK's intellect (and save your plagiarism comments for someone else. Just read "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" if you want proof.) But just like with Time Magazine and Kanye West, it's another way of saying "See, we think black people can be smart too."

It's not a question of respect. It's patronizing. MLK may have earned the right to have been called by his title, but i've yet to meet the Ph.D. who likes being called "doctor" outside of a formal lecture auditorium. In fact, King's friends called him Mike. i liked it better when the media called him Reverend, but of course now that's taboo because it implies that he might have believed in God.

But that's another kind of bigotry for another post.

Posted by: annika at 10:15 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 611 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I am an American bigot. Not against any person of pallor or color, or even ethnic background. It is against the "takers" who prey on those who produce and work for what they have.

Posted by: NOTR at September 06, 2005 10:21 PM (izx0t)

2 Excellent point: being patronizing is damned racist. Outside the KKK, or that Black Muslim Preacher of Hate who's name I can't recall right now, there's hardly anyone more racist than a patronizing white liberal - unless it's a black liberal racistly accusing political conservatives of being racist. The media's patronization constantly shows up in what they ignore in black newsmakers - such as when I watched Al Sharpton call Republicans racists during a Democratic Presidential debate, and John Kerry stood behind Shapton with a silly grin and clapped for Sharpton's blatantly racist comment. If you're a black media darling, you can be the village idiot and they will patronizingly ignore it. You can be a corrupt corporate blackmailer(Jesse Jackson) who hugs America's enemies, and the media will patronizingly never call you a spotlight chasing fool. I believe it's actual racism. I believe the media is figuratively patting the simple pickaninnies on their heads - as in: 'Who can expect such simple people to be held to adult standards of conduct?' It's insulting, and I feel certain many black people are insulted by it also. I must point out that I don't think your examples are the best. Snopes reports this quote from the AFP reporter who snapped the photo of the couple who "found" food(quoting from memory): "A convenience store was flooded, and it's inventory was floating in the street. I saw the couple, and assumed they had found the items floating before picking them up." Second: I think, maybe, in the 1960's, many people were proud to say "Dr. Martin Luther King". It was a different time and a different nation. I seem to recall hearing many people say "Dr. Martin Luther King" with quite a bit of pride in their voices. Maybe the "Dr." part of the title was a partial source of that pride. Just a thought. I'd like to hear more on this from someone who remembers that time.

Posted by: gcotharn at September 06, 2005 10:47 PM (M7kiy)

3 You mean "The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan"? Racist? Nah. Check the dictionary; his picture is next to the word "bigot".

Posted by: shelly at September 07, 2005 02:59 AM (ywZa8)

4 When I was about twelve and just beginning to develop some political awareness, I somehow became aware of the stereotype that conservatives are racists and liberals tend to be paragons of egalitarian tolerance. (At the time, I'd probably have used "Democrats" instead of "liberals," and "Republicans" instead of "conservatives.") This bothered me a little. I knew my dad was a strong Republican, but I also knew he was no racist. I wondered why he'd want to support such people, so I asked him about it. That was my introduction to the concept of "the soft bigotry of low expectations," which I think largely explains the phenomena you mention, and many that you don't. ("A black man with a Ph.D.? Wow! Be sure to call him 'doctor.' A black man who seems really smart [to us]? Astounding! Let's do a cover feature on him! Affirmative action? How else are the poor, benighted, helpless blacks going to compete with white folks?") Of course there are conservatives and libertarians who are genuinely racist, and there are liberals who genuinely believe that affirmative action is a moral imperative as a sort of penance for the evils of slavery and as a tool for eliminating racism. But in general, over the years I've come to believe that "the soft bigotry of low expectations" is something a great many liberals are guilty of, and that the philosophy that every person should be allowed to stand on their own feet, and succeed or fail without meddling from government, is about as egalitarian an idea as there is.

Posted by: Matt at September 07, 2005 04:06 AM (Ur3KC)

5 I will go a little farther Matt, I am a libertarian but I believe Affirmative Action was necessary for a period of time. Not because I believe blacks are incapable but this country needed to "jump start" many blacks into the middle class in the sixties and seventies. The bad think about affirmative action was that it should have had a time limit. Now you have many black people who, I think, due to liberalism actually doubt their own ability to "make it" without government help. That is the sad legacy of soft bigotry.

Posted by: Kyle N at September 07, 2005 05:18 AM (BLSv+)

6 "Smartest man in pop music"......hmmmmm, isn't that like being the best hockey player in Ecuador?

Posted by: Pursuit at September 07, 2005 08:02 AM (n/TNS)

7 Captain of the Jamaican Olympic Bobsled Team. Come to think of it, he's pretty smart; gets a free trip to the Olymics and all the fun at the Village. Strike my comment;this guy IS smart.

Posted by: shelly at September 07, 2005 08:17 AM (6krEN)

8 Annie: Regarding the looting, we apparently haven't been told the whole story. (Imagine that.) http://marknicodemo.mu.nu/archives/116529.php

Posted by: Mark at September 07, 2005 10:40 AM (Vg0tt)

9 Joseph Heller observed in Catch 22 that we all have concentric circles of loyalty that expand outwardly from ourselves to our family, friends, community, etc... Part of the human condition is that we all love ourselves above others. Call it whatever you like. It wasn't until we tried to legislate equality, that the race-baters came to the fore, and the black man was driven from his home by the do-gooder welfare state, and the pop culture hung the face of pimp on him. Now "Art" follows the culture as teens take on the trappings of the characature, and every woman is a "ho". At least the end of Western Civilization is interesting.

Posted by: Casca at September 07, 2005 10:52 AM (qBTBH)

10 Thanks for taking up my slack, Mark. I got that link via e-mail yesterday and was planning to post it here, because it ties in nicely with Annie's subject. But I got busy, one thing led to another, and that was it.

Posted by: Matt at September 07, 2005 01:16 PM (10G2T)

11 My pleasure Matt.

Posted by: Mark at September 07, 2005 01:50 PM (Vg0tt)

12 With regard to the picture of the "white" people shown in the picture in question, the "finders" as opposed to the "looters", there was a write up by the photographer. He said that HE labeled the folks as "finders" because they were among a large group of people, both black and white, in an area where groceries had literally floated out of a nearby store. The people found the food floating on the water as they walked thru the area. They did not enter a store, did not break any windows, they just scooped some food out of the water as it floated by.

Posted by: mbecker908 at September 07, 2005 04:22 PM (Nlp5A)

13 I did think of a white PhD who used the term "Dr." - Dr. Henry Kissinger. I am unfamiliar with the black pastorate, so I don't know how many black preachers with PhD's referred to themselves as "Dr." I'm trying to think of a white pastor with a PhD, but I can't think of one - wait, I just remembered Dr. Gene Scott. So the "doctor" thing may be occupational, and have nothing to do with race. Further study is required.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at September 07, 2005 04:51 PM (bGyIu)

14 I recall an interview with Ice-T conducted by a white, female, British journalist. On the topic of the rampant misogyny of his lyrics, she said something to him along the lines of "I think you're much too smart to be this sexist". Then he proved her wrong by pimp-slappin' her for patronising him (well, at least that's how I wish he had responded).

Posted by: kennteoh at September 07, 2005 09:57 PM (WJ7Rm)

15 Great post incidentally - such laboured reference to positive attributes only betrays the fact that the writer/speaker expected them to be absent. "Smart" also constitutes such slight praise that it insults. Being praised as the "smartest" rapper is akin to receiving plaudits for being "the most competent" instrumentalist around.

Posted by: kennteoh at September 07, 2005 10:05 PM (WJ7Rm)

16 Laura Ingraham was playing cuts from Elijah whats-his-face of the Congressional Black Caucus yesterday, and bumped out with the theme from the old Monkees TV show. You know, "Heh heh, we're the Monkees... " lmfao

Posted by: Casca at September 08, 2005 07:35 AM (qBTBH)

17 Actually, a fair number of Ph.D.s like to be called Dr. off campus. I don't usually use it, but my wife will sometimes use it when she gives someone my name. If you read Slate, there was a "Dear Prudence" column about this a few months ago. But just to show you I'm even-handed, there is some question about whether King really earned his title. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._-_authorship_issues Personal to Casca: It wasn't the welfare state that drove the black man from his home. It was the slave traders.

Posted by: Pericles at September 09, 2005 12:48 PM (EpPuP)

18 Personal to Pericles: The slave traders were a fortunate happening for the generations which came after slavery ended. My evidence is that we never saw a large - or even a medium - migration of U.S. citizens moving to Africa. Given this, I find your slave trader reference to be disingenious.

Posted by: gcotharn at September 09, 2005 02:18 PM (ywZa8)

19 In regards to this asshole Kanye West; I personally do not agree with a lot of what our president does and/or says, but I certainly think that it was beyond bad taste for this alleged entertainer to use the platform of aid and assistance to those devastated by this hurricane to spout this offensive, disrespectful diatribe against our president during this incredibly sad time. Plain and simple.....Kanye West is an asshole!

Posted by: Walter Alderete at September 10, 2005 09:18 AM (5KnIk)

20 There may be some truth in what you say, but the lack of a migration back doesn't prove it. The children of slaves would have been going back to a continent where they didn't fit any more, in terms of language, culture, religion, etc. Where would they have lived---with tribes that their ancestors had been taken from generations earlier. African-Americans I talked to who have gone back to Africa have said that they are definitely regarded as Americans there, not as Africans. Anyway, I was only responding to Casca's innane point about blacks having been deprived of their homes by welfare. Whatever negative consequences welfare may have had for the black community, and I know about the Moynihan Report, it didn't rob anyone of their homes. Given that s/he finds humor in the juxtaposition of a black face and the word "monkey," I think we know where Casca is coming from. I've heard conservatives complain that liberals are too quick to call them racists, and that may be true, but when the shoe really DOES fit...

Posted by: Pericles at September 11, 2005 05:11 PM (EpPuP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

This week's Cotillion Ball is being held in four ballrooms at the very top of the Hotel Blogosphere. Besides this room, where i am your humble M.C., we have RightGirl, Merri Musings and Stacy, each of whom have wonderful festivities planned for today. As you stroll around the dance floor, i'd like you to imagine listening to the music of some great musicians from the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana. Foremost is of course Sachmo, whose version of "A Kiss To Build A Dream On" is one of the great classics of all time.

Crystal Clear deserves congratulations for having landed a dream job in Hawaii, not an easy state to make a living in. And she'll be doing good work, too.

[A]fter a great deal of soul-searching it really seemed to me that the consistent pattern and passion in my life has always been children and likely always will be serving the underserved children and watching out for the kids many people consider "throw aways".

Darleen has a provocatively titled post, "Jesus Was Not A Socialist."

No where in [Jesus'] teachings does one find a call that GOVERNMENT must use its power to redistribute property from the earners to the needers. Indeed, Jesus preached about the difference between the Government and individuals.

. . .

Socialism is not about individuals giving of their own earned property. It's about self-selected people of power deciding to fulfill their own desires with someone else's property taken by force.

Morality assumes choice. Socialism is a matter of, at best, amorality, because it robs people of choice.

Dr. Sanity discusses a common phenomenon many of us observe when trying to understand the leftist mind at work. It's called "denial."

When belief in any idea become a matter of faith--and one's own identity is defined by that faith--then the psyche will do anything necessary to distort or deny any truth that contradicts that belief.

. . .

I fear that is the choice that those on the Left are making right now, although they like to imagine that those of us who are fighting against the new threats to human freedom and dignity are the ones suffering from delusion.

When all hell breaks loose, for some the niceties of self-disciplined social interaction disappear in a wash of mind-numbing fear and desperation. Others, realize that desperate times call for even more rigorous commitment to the principles of civilized behavior—that set of Values which makes a hellish situation infinitely more manageable.

Sadie: You believe that Joran Van der Sloot emailed you hours before he was arrested. What made these emails seem authentic?

Dan: Joran or someone close to him - why else would someone go to the trouble? I thought maybe him and his Father together Â… the emails were written with some awareness of the law, as well as forming public opinion. That isnÂ’t your average seventeen year old on his own.

RightGirl has a beautiful post about the friends we make on-line, and the limitations of those friendships.

[E]very once in a while, you come across a person who touches you. You make a friend, and the boundaries of real life vs. internet blur a little at the edges. . . . You get caught up in their dramas: their joys and sorrows. Sometimes you prefer them to those real friends, because you don't know them well enough to know their ugly habits. . . . But when these people that you have come to hold as real suffer something large and devastating, you feel that pain, too. But because they are only 'imaginary,' there often isn't anything you can do. You can pray. You can try to reach out. But miles and boundaries get in the way. Sometimes, you just have to let them drop.

For the last time: You have a participatory form of government. PARTICIPATE. Or:

"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are."

But then, the woman who wrote that was not a progressive, so we can ignore her.

Here's the largest, most profound problem recognized by all medical personnel yesterday: People needed to get prescriptions filled. Many are already in the system for state medicare or had private insurance - but didn't have 3 bucks for the co-pay. I see all of these corporations giving a million bucks in cash which is a good thing-but for at least one corporation out there I know of a great need that has not been met yet. But what we really, really needed was for a drug chain to step forward and volunteer to cover peoples co-pay for refugees. Can you imagine how many prescriptions could be filled with a one million dollar donation for co-pays?? Many, many of our problems would have been solved.

P.S. i almost forgot everyone's favorite Louisiana musician/mom-to-be!

Posted by: annika at 11:03 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1081 words, total size 9 kb.

As a young Catholic School girl, i was taught that donations to charity should be made with humility. So, when i asked you all for help with the Blogathon for Hurricane Relief, i didn't put up a link to N.Z. Bear's Weblog Leader Board (which has tallied over $650,000 in contributions as of this writing.).

But, checking that leader board today, i was shocked to find that my name is on it, and that five of you have recorded your contributions with my blog as a reference! The total for annika's journal is $425!

It still amazes me that anyone even reads my bullshit, so i can't tell you how happy and grateful and proud i am, that in some small way this blog might be responsible for that kind of graciousness. Thank you so much! i think the Blogathon is clearly one of the true success stories to come out of this hurricane tragedy.

Let's keep it going!

Update: We're now up to $650!

Update 2: Wow, $1,150! You folks are incredible!

Remember that the crisis is not over. In fact, it's really just beginning. The population of a major city has picked up and scattered itself around the country. If you've ever lived on somebody's couch for an extended period, you know how unsettling that can be for all concerned. After a few weeks, these folks will really need the kind of help that charities like Catholic Relief can provide. So let's not forget about them, even if the media starts to lose interest.

Posted by: annika at 07:30 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

Me and my roommate Megan tried two more pistols today, both Smith & Wesson. Here's my novice review.

The first was the venerable Smith & Wesson Military and Police .38 special. The particular model we rented was the Model 64. Someone told me that this gun is used by California prison guards, but i have not been able to verify that information.

i chose this revolver because it's what i always pictured when i thought of the word "gun." The design dates back to 1899. It's simple to operate and easy to shoot, but i didn't like the sights. The rear sight is really a groove along the top of the cylinder. i had trouble lining it up with the front sight in the low light of the range, and consequently i shot worse with the .38 than i have with any other gun.

The S&W 64 retails for $583, but i wouldn't buy it. Here's what Dirty Harry said about .38 calibers in The Enforcer:

Kate: You're 'cold bold Callahan with his great big .44'. Every other cop is satisfied with a .38 or a .357. Why do you have to carry that cannon for?

Harry: So I hit what I aim at, that's why.

Kate: Oh I see. So that's for the penetration.

Harry: Does everything have a sexual connotation with you?

Kate: Only sometimes.

Harry: The .357's a good weapon, but i've seen .38 slugs bounce off of windshields. That's no good in a town like this.

The next gun we tried was the Smith & Wesson 4006TSW, which shot the .40 S&W cartridge. Now this was more like it. i had been curious about the .40 S&W round, because i'd been told that it had more power to stop an attacker than a 9mm, while still being easy on the arm. i found the kick of this gun comparable to the Sig and Browning 9 millimeters i loved so much.

i also like the fact that it had an actual safety, unlike the Sig Sauers, which have none.

Megan and i split a box of 50 bullets, and i shot 17 rounds at ranges of 7 and 15 yards. i kept all but three inside the 9 ring, which for me is okay. Then i switched to the head at 25 yards for the last eight rounds, and missed only once. So i'd say this is a pretty accurate pistol.

Another neat feature of this weapon was the rack on the bottom of the barrel, which can be used to attach a flashlight or a laser sight. i love accessories!

This might be the all around defensive weapon for me. It satisfies a number of requirements i have. Good power, reliable (it jammed only once), it has a safety, it's accurate, not too much recoil, has a comfortable grip, and holds at least ten rounds. i also like that it's made in America, and the stainless steel is supposed to resist corrosion.

i don't like the sights as much as the Sig Sauer's three dot system, which is really easy for me to see. The Smith & Wesson has a white dot on the front sight, but the rear sight is all black. i like the three dot system better because i can tell whether the gun is lined up from left to right by judging if the three dots are equally spaced apart. i can't do that on the 4006 because i only see one dot.

i don't think they make this model anymore. i picked up a Smith and Wesson catalog for 2005 and the closest thing they had with a 4 inch barrel was the model 410, which doesn't come in stainless steel. But i'm not ready to buy anything yet anyway. There's plenty of other pistols i need to sample first.

Update: Boone Country wrote a spirited defense of the .38 special way back in 2003 that is worth reading.

Posted by: annika at 09:33 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 751 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Annika, Nice range report. I'm impressed by your extended range work before buying. (I'm also impressed by the time you have for blogging and the range while in law school. When I was a Baylor, I hardly had time for breathing.) You'd be surprised how many people impulse-buy a pistol. My wife and I have his-and-hers Springfield XDs in .40 S&W, which we're quite happy with. When we tried it at the range before buying, the grin on her face said, "Yeah. This is the one."

Posted by: Bryan at September 04, 2005 11:46 PM (G5PGV)

2 Don't buy without taking the Glock 9 MM for a test drive...

Posted by: shelly at September 05, 2005 01:38 AM (ywZa8)

3 I believe that the ammo they sell you at the range are called "wadcutters", for the very reason that all they need to do is make holes in paper. All of the above stuff is true, but you will note that ranges do not allow you to bring your own ammo. Take a walk in a quiet part of the country, away from where people live, and some tin cans or other type targets and see the difference between the wadcutters and the real thing.

Posted by: shelly at September 05, 2005 07:02 AM (ywZa8)

4 If you like .40's you should really give the Glock 23 a try. It is chambered for the .40 but has a small enough frame to be easy on folks with small hands. I'm not a huge fan of S&W for Auto's ( they seem to jam more than other's for me ) although some people swear by them. My choices in order of brand for 40 would be Glock 23, H&K USP chambered for .40, Sig Sauer P229, and only as a last resort I would go with a S&W or Ruger P94. I like auto's but not nearly as much as I love my true passion which is large bore revolvers. My current favorite is my .454 Casull. I hunted with it a while back and took a nice deer with it. You really can't beat it for reach out and touch something power. For personal defense though it would be a bit much So give the Glock 23 a chance if you can and let us know what you think. Also steer clear of 9mm they simply don't have enough knock down power unless the round hits in exactly the right spot which can be hard to do under pressure even for people who have been well trained. In school they told us most urban gunfire exchanges take place at under 7 yards and 90 percent of all shots are missed. Not sure if it's true or not but that is what our instructors told us. ( Marine Corps. CQB training Chesapeak Va. ) So even more important than knock down power is that you have to be able to hit something when that something is trying to kill you.

Posted by: Andy at September 05, 2005 07:50 AM (l04c2)

5 Shelly, most ranges let you use any ammo you want in your guns. There's one around here that insists you buy their ammo for anything you shoot & I avoid that place. Most all ranges do make you buy their ammo for rentals. & wadcutters are a type of ammo that is sold at ranges (usually) but it's not 'the" kind, just "a" kind. Glocks - feh. If anyone likes them so be it. But with glocks two things come to mind - they have an unsupported chamber which means using really high pressured rounds might not be a good idea. The other is more common - they have polygonal rifled barrels. More or less this means using eposed lead (i.e. no jacket) ammo is discouraged. An aftermarket barrel takes care of both of those problems but still - no, I won't go into it. It's just a matter of preference. But glocks never fascinated me. Then again I never cared for any pistol w/o an exposed hammer.

Posted by: Publicola at September 05, 2005 03:32 PM (vC8Ev)

6 Never heard of the Casull, but my brother had a 454 Chevy that he absolutely loved.

Posted by: annika at September 05, 2005 08:59 PM (0VDIG)

7 As Publicola rightly pointed out, the .357 is longer than the .38 Spl. If Range Dude isn't aware of that simple, well-known fact, Range Dude is not someone from whom you should take advice on firearms. I won't get into the specific of these particular pistols. (I do second the suggestion that you should check out a Glock or two.) Generally speaking, though, I recommend that anyone interested in buying only one handgun for self-defense and general plinking choose a revolver, unless he/she plans to do a great deal of practicing. Semi-autos are just plain harder to learn to use effectively; there's more than can go wrong with them and it takes a fair amount of training and practice to learn to deal effectively with potential problems -- especially under stress.

Posted by: Matt at September 06, 2005 04:10 AM (Ur3KC)

8 Matt, course the counter argument is that with some training (not quite as much as I think you're implying) those potential problems with semi's can be solved on the spot with minimal fuss. With revolvers a problem usually involves tools & a set of schematics to sort out (granted such problems are rare but it wouldn't be an argument if it was nonexistent). Revolvers are great & I don't mean to knock them at all but I don't think it's that much harder to learn to work a semi. Now a good argument in favor of revolvers would be that they're omnivorous. A semi needs a certain power level of ammo to work reliably. A revolver can shoot a full power cartridge right after a subsonic target round followed by a shot round with just a pull of the trigger (course the shot round may bind - best to try those out in each revolver to be sure). & there's always the tried & true argument my grandfather used on me when I tried to talk him into getting a semi - if ya can't hit it with 6 shots you need to be running. But in the end it's a matter of preference. If a person feels more comfy with a semi, cool. Ditto for revolvers. Course I am surprised that miss Annika took Range Dude at his word when he said that his (.38 Spl) was just as long as the other one (.357 Magnum) was. I thought all women, especially California women weren't that trusting when it came to a guy's sense of measurement...Or maybe size doesn't really matter after all?

Posted by: Publicola at September 06, 2005 06:05 AM (vC8Ev)

9 "reliable (it jammed only once)" That is NOT reliable for a carry gun. Though I do understand you are using range guns, which you should not hold it against them if they jam because normally the guns are not well cared for. Though if you find a range gun that you like and it jams, try to find another example of it owned by a person. Also read about it on the net and take a look at the customer service and see how good it is.

Posted by: cube at September 06, 2005 07:47 AM (nyNr0)

10 you guys are harshing on the nice range dude so much, i have to come to his defense. due to my sloppy sentence structure it looks like i attributed that statement about the cartridges being the same size to him. Actually the only thing he said was about the wadding. What happened was that he showed me a .357 cartridge and put it next to a .38 cartridge to compare. It was i who thought the cases were the same size (although i did notice a difference in length, which i attributed to the bullet) My bad.

Posted by: annika at September 06, 2005 07:49 AM (bpSIb)

11 There is very little I can add to the current debate waging in here other than this. For home defense, the best weapon you will ever buy will be a shotgun. The pistols work great when you're out and about, but when you are stumbling around in the dark at 3:00am, the best way to hit your target is with a 12 gauge and a full choke.

Posted by: Charlie Gordon at September 06, 2005 09:33 AM (D3+20)

12 Charlie is absolutely right. If you are buying only one gun, and it's for self-defense, and you don't care about being able to carry it concealed, a shotgun (and here I prefer the semi-autos to pumps because of the high probability of short-stroking under stress [get your minds out of the gutter!]) is very, very hard to beat. And it's cheap. And it's only slightly less destructive than a tactical nuclear weapon. Now we can have a lengthy, spirited debate about the proper choice of shot size for said shotgun. This place is starting to remind me of some of the shooting boards I used to frequent! Publicola, I love semi-autos -- some of my favorite handguns are semi-autos -- and lean heavily toward them, but I stand by my recommendation of revolvers for relatively unpracticed shooters. Here's why. If you have a misfire with a revolver (and of course I'm assuming we're talking a DA revolver, here), the immediate action is simple: Pull the trigger again. That's it. Whatever was wrong with the last cartridge is now irrelevant, because the simple, reflexive act of pulling the trigger cycles that cartridge out of the way and gives you a second chance almost instantly. (Of course if your firing pin is broken you're screwed, but that could happen with a semi-auto, too.) If you have a misfire with a semi-auto, your pistol is out of action until you clear the chamber and get a fresh round in there. You will, if you've been properly trained and have practiced until it has become second nature, remember to execute "tap-rack-bang." If that doesn't solve the problem, you'll hopefully remember to hunker down behind cover and execute the much longer procedure for that situation. If you haven't been properly trained, or haven't practiced until it has become second nature, you'll pull the trigger real hard once or twice more, realize that Bessy ain't gonna go boom, turn her sideways and look dumbly at her for a second or so, and then start trying to remember/figure out your immediate action. (Of course if you have a truly DA semi-auto, or one with an external hammer that can be thumbed back, you can try a quick follow-up with the same cartridge. That may do the trick, but it may not. If seconds count, I'd prefer not to waste time fiddling with a cartridge that's already screwed me once.) A revolver will never stovepipe, fail to extract, fail to eject, double feed, or do nearly any of the other nasty, ammo-related things that our beloved semis sometimes do. (Or if it does fail to extract for some reason, it'll only be an issue after you've emptied the cylinder at the bad guys. That's a lot better than having it happen after the first round.) A revolver has no magazines that can become dented, or whose lips can get bent, or whose follower spring can become anemic -- all of which can take a magazine and thus the entire gun out of action. A revolver doesn't care if you stuff it with some weird hollow-point that would never work reliably in your semi-auto of choice without a massive reconfiguration of the feed ramp. In fact, as you pointed out a revolver doesn't much care what the hell you feed it, as long as it's of the appropriate caliber. A revolver will never need its feed ramp or throat polished in order to function reliably. A revolver doesn't have a safety that you'll forget to flip to "fire" under stress. (Of course, to be fair, some modern semi-autos don't have external safeties, either. But they usually have much shorter trigger pulls than revolvers and, as a result, are apt to go bang if you get careless with your trigger finger -- which, again, people tend to do under stress.) Speaking from personal experience in situations much less stressful than actual threats to life and limb, the typical reaction when one forgets that the safety's on is -- again -- to pull the trigger real hard once or twice. This practically never makes a semi-auto go bang, at least if it's a quality firearm that hasn't been monkeyed with. It will almost always make a revolver go bang. By definition, the chamber on a revolver is always fully supported. It is relatively hard to blow up a revolver, even if you handload carelessly. (Of course it can be done -- it's just harder than with most semi-autos.) This should not be an issue for a shooter using factory ammo and a quality, modern handgun designed for that ammunition, but it's worth mentioning. These are the main reasons I recommend revolvers for shooters who don't practice a great deal and/or haven't received much training with semi-autos.

Posted by: Matt at September 06, 2005 12:13 PM (10G2T)

13 Matt, you don't comment here enough. have i ever told you that? : ) Anyways, if i was a smartass, or if i really had more experience with the things, i might say that all of the above problems you mentioned with semi-autos could be solved by simply purchasing a Sig Sauer. i should also alert you shotgun fans that your arguments have merit. However, you may not know (how could you, i didn't know until three weeks ago) that i absolutely love target shooting. i really do. i can't imagine buying a shotgun and just letting it sit in the closet for that rainy day when i could be over at my favorite range cutting pretty patterns in a piece of paper. Oh i could take up trap shooting, but i'm juggling too many hobbies as it is. Besides, i should brief cases once in a while, don't you think? Please stay tuned for upcoming "New Gun Nut Progress Reports." On deck is a post entitled: "The Becker Stance?" and "Reasons Why i Want... errrr... Need Three Guns."

Posted by: annie at September 06, 2005 07:13 PM (aTy6U)

14 You clearly are a smartass, but that's part of what makes you the Annie we know and love. I ne'er speak ill of the Swiss or Germans (SIG-Sauer is both, actually; SIG was Swiss, Sauer was German) when it comes to chocolate or fine machinery, including guns. (I'd add beer, but I've had a couple of really horrible Swiss beers.) That said, their semi-autos are vulnerable to the same general problems as the rest of the class; they're just not as vulnerable as most. Staying tuned . . .

Posted by: Matt at September 06, 2005 10:38 PM (Ur3KC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Weird, huh?

Posted by: annika at 09:27 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 4 words, total size 1 kb.

Another Supreme Court Justice gone, another chance for a lazy blogger to recycle an old post. Remember my Guide to the Supreme Court?

Posted by: annika at 09:12 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

Richard Simmons, bless his heart, said the following on Larry King Live just now:

"New Orleans is the Venice, Italy of the world."

P.S. i want to like Celine Dion, i really do, but her personality makes that impossible.

Posted by: annika at 11:32 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

"Poor Mike Myers. Look at his face. He looks like he's gonna hurl."

i wish i'd thought of that. The subtly obscure movie reference is supposed to be my bailiwick.

Posted by: annika at 10:01 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

Finally.

Thank God for the U.S. Military. The politicians and the bureaucrats can go to hell.

Posted by: annika at 09:09 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

A real American hero, twenty year old Jabbar Gibson, who took it upon himself to grab the keys to a school bus and drive a busload of folks 13 hours to safety.

Gibson drove the bus from the flooded Crescent City, picking up stranded people, some of them infants, along the way. Some of those on board had been in the Superdome, among those who were supposed to be evacuated to Houston on more than 400 buses Wednesday and today. They couldn't wait.

The group of mostly teenagers and young adults pooled what little money they had to buy diapers for the babies and fuel for the bus.

. . .

'I feel good to get out of New Orleans,' said Demetrius Henderson, who got off the bus with his wife and three children. Many of those around him alternated between excited, cranky and nervous, clutching suitcases or plastic garbage bags of clothes.

They looked as bedraggled as their grueling ride would suggest: 13 hours on the commandeered bus driven by a 20-year-old man. Watching bodies float by as they tried to escape the drowning city. Picking up people along the way. Three stops for fuel. Chugging into Reliant Park, only to be told initially that they could not spend the night.

. . .

After arriving at the Astrodome at about 10:30 p.m., however, they initially were refused entry by Reliant officials who said the aging landmark was reserved for the 23,000 people being evacuated from the Louisiana Superdome.

'Now, we don't have nowhere to go' Gibson said. 'We heard the Astrodome was open for people from New Orleans. We ain't ate right, we ain't slept right. They don't want to give us no help. They don't want to let us in.'

. . .

After about 20 minutes of confusion and consternation, Red Cross officials announced that the group of about 50 to 70 evacuees would be allowed into the Astrodome.

From the Houston Chronicle.

Posted by: annika at 07:34 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.

i'm reprinting the following request by Ken Wheaton in full. Please help if you can.

Understandably, sitting on the sidelines in New York and watching fellow Americans suffer is as frustrating as it is heart-breaking. Especially for those of us from Louisiana and living elsewhere, we want to do something more than just send money to the American Red Cross, with the vague sense of unease that it may get spent on a company car or a press release or a box of donuts at headquarters. And hopping in a rental car or on a plane is not only a direct violation of FEMA orders, but at this point, with gas as high as it is, it's prohibitively expensive, possibly dangerous and THAT money might be better spent on relief efforts.

So here's your chance to help one specific group of people. My friend Felicia, who you've read about in previous posts, is on a task force in St. Landry Parish, in Opelousas to be more precise. Opelousas, as many of you know, is my home town. There are currently a great deal of refugees who've ended up there--in the churches, in the shelters, in the Yambilee building, camping out in the parks--and they're going to need things.

For a closer look at what's going on in Opelousas and St. Landry Parish, check out The Opelousas Daily World.

So... Felicia is providing me and you with her home address. Care packages and checks specifically to help this group of people can be sent to her. Be sure to include a return address and your name.

St. Landry Katrina Relief
c/o Felicia Mouton
1022 Eddins Avenue
Opelousas, LA 70570

Things that are needed

Felicia says that while you can send clothes and food, those things are generally accounted for. Instead, she says, send

baby wipes, diapers, tampons, sanitary napkins, underwear, undershirts, Q-tips, cotton balls, dental floss, toothpaste, toothbrushes, deodorant, shampoos, soaps, etc....basically, anything you and I would by at Walgreen's for personal upkeep. These things are rarely thought of. The best way to purchase this kind of stuff is to actually in travel size so that individual packets can be given to people, and they don't have to share.

Also, anything for children, such as toys that don't necessarily have to be shared or want to be stolen, art paper, colors, coloring books, reading books...easy stuff. AND SCHOOL SUPPLIES! DON'T FORGET SCHOOL SUPPLIES!

In general, don't send anything worth money because in these type of shelters (well, in any that I've had to stay in/work in) things will be taken.

If you do want to send money, make checks payable to "Hurricane Katrina, St. Landry Parish Fund." From here on out, any money put into my PayPal account will go to this relief effort.

I would ask that anyone and everyone who reads my blog, who links to my blog, who has a home on my sidebar either contribute or at least provide a link to this post. Please. I'm begging here. Thank you all very much.

. . . Have a great Labor Day.

Posted by: annika at 07:14 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 507 words, total size 6 kb.

This morning, President Bush gave what has to be his worst speech ever. And that's saying something. i've consistently criticized the president for his maddening inarticulateness, and today he said exactly the wrong things in exactly the wrong tone.

i understand the general rule of thumb in a situation like this. Presidents usually try to remain optimistic, and sound upbeat yet determined. That was exactly the type of approach that worked the week of 9/11. But after the horror of the last four days, the time for the standard speech template is over.

Bush's tone needed to recognize the reality of the situation on the ground now. The folks in the hell that was once New Orleans don't really give a flying fuck about Trent Lott's porch. They're not thinking about the rebuilding effort or whether the city will ever "be great again." They're worried about water, food, and whether they're going to get raped or killed when the sun goes down tonight.

In short, they're worried about survival, and they're understandably pissed at the government. Instead of recognizing that, the president tried to blow smoke up their collective asses. He should have let them know he was as impatient for results as they are.

Here's the lowpoint of that awful speech.

We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch. (Laughter.)

Again, I want to thank you all for -- and, Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job. The FEMA Director is working 24 -- (applause) -- they're working 24 hours a day.

Again, my attitude is, if it's not going exactly right, we're going to make it go exactly right. If there's problems, we're going to address the problems. And that's what I've come down to assure people of. And again, I want to thank everybody.

And just so you know, i'm a huge Bush fan.

Posted by: annika at 02:44 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 474 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I understand what you are saying. I think that this has caused Bush to loose all support he once had. He is now a true Lame Duck and will get nothing else done. Bush could have been a truely great president. He did the right thing in going to war and getting the economy moving with tax cuts. But, the runaway spending, the errors in Iraq, particularly going in with too few troops, and the situation on the border. These have caused too much weariness among his defenders. Now this very lackluster performance in the greatest single tradgedy in the history of the USA, its all over for him. The only good thing is he will still probably get John Roberts into the court.

Posted by: Kyle at September 02, 2005 02:54 PM (WzAM+)

2 Annika, I think you should know the dog of my childhood was named Brownie, and my parents made him sleep outside in a dog house. But seriously, you are quite right about the tone he struck-dimissive of the tragedy and offering a shuck and a smile to people starving to death. As you know I am a giant fan of this president and his usual erudite, always prepared oratory, but this speech sounds like a real winner. I am only sorry that I can't vote for him a fourth time. Maybe I can vote for Brownie.

Posted by: Strawman at September 02, 2005 02:59 PM (0ZdtC)

3 i'm not that pessimistic yet. Bush can still turn this Katrina disaster around, but he has to get results. Not pay lip service, he has to just "git 'er done." If that means heads need to roll in the bureacracy, do it.

Posted by: annie at September 02, 2005 03:00 PM (yRmC2)

4 Strawman, you do have a sense of humor. Who'd have thunk it?

Posted by: annie at September 02, 2005 03:02 PM (yRmC2)

5 Annika, Yup, an angry funny guy. It is the best combination. BTW, since Kyle mentioned John Roberts, I just want to say, with out revealing the connection, but it is very close to JR, that I am comfortable with him as a Supreme court judge. I hope That scares the shit out of you.

Posted by: Strawman at September 02, 2005 03:15 PM (0ZdtC)

6 it doesn't Strawman. Maybe you ain't such a bad guy after all. After i smack you in the nose with that spitball, how about i buy you a beer?

Posted by: annika at September 02, 2005 03:20 PM (yRmC2)

7 "The Horror"? More like the depravity of the thugs of New Orleans. Every year in Detroit they do the same things, burn houses, kill people. If you wish to be offended, be offended with those at fault. I know she's not much, but LA does have a Governor, state and local coppers, and National Guard troops at the beck and call of the Gov, and no they're not all in Iraq. Then there is the cartoonish Mayor who has turned out to be the anti-Guliani, and a police force that has lived up to its rep of worst in the nation. Finally we have the dregs of the citizenry themselves who refused to leave when ordered out, and now flail helplessly in the welter of their gore, and the MSM groupthink that insists on a hollywood ending to banal reality. Sorry folks, things don't work that way.

Posted by: Casca at September 02, 2005 03:31 PM (qBTBH)

8 "Then there is the cartoonish Mayor who has turned out to be the anti-Guliani" I kinda liked Nagin as a mayor before this disaster happened. Blame it on my ignorance of local politics. Anyway, at least he was a hell of a lot better than Moriale. "Finally we have the dregs of the citizenry themselves who refused to leave when ordered out, and now flail helplessly in the welter of their gore" My uncle is thinking about selling his home in New Orleans when he gets the chance. He says that he loathes the "trash"(dregs) that has been building up in the city for all these years. He doesn't want to raise his kids there with all those looting, murderous bastards still around.

Posted by: reagan80 at September 02, 2005 04:08 PM (gBFkV)

9 Bush's speech was definitely lacking to say the least. This doesn't mean that he's to fault for a response many people feel is slow. Let's face it, most of the work is in other people's hands, but a good speech could have done wonders. If Bush is actually directing the response, then FEMA and the National Guard are not doing their job. Bush's only job is to reassure the people that they will be taken care of. Just because they made the mistake of staying behind doesn't mean we should leave them to fend for themselves. In addition to some reassurance, I'd have liked a speech that would have spelled out the required punishment for those that have fueled the anarchy. In the rubble of the WTC, Bush stated clearly who was going to be held responsible for that disaster. I miss that guy.

Posted by: Trevor at September 02, 2005 04:44 PM (GtBBB)

10 "I kinda liked Nagin as a mayor before this disaster happened." Not having lived in New Orleans once he took office, I mostly heard good things about him. At leasst the fact that he endorsed Jindal over Blanco for governor seemed to be a positive sign of ending business as usual. "Anyway, at least he was a hell of a lot better than Moriale." Now THERE'S a backhanded compliment. Marc "my top priority is putting my name on every trash can in the city" Morial was (and still is) a fucking joke. Or do you mean his father, who I gather was smarter and therefore able to be even MORE corrupt?

Posted by: Dave J at September 02, 2005 08:39 PM (8XpMm)

11 Annie, Not one word on the utter negligence of the City of New Orleans, its Mayor, and Louisiana? They knew for HOW MANY years that this exact tragedy could occur? But it's all the fault of Bush's speaking ability and the feds'?

Posted by: Mark at September 03, 2005 02:34 AM (7xNjY)

12 Mark, I don't think anyone was saying that the situation in NO was Bush's fault. What was being said was that the federal response wasn't as cool as it could have been (which would have been claimed no matter how good it was, as was pointed out) but that Bush's speech didn't help the perception of the feds doing things right. If your family was attacked & the police responded ten minutes after they were called & then the chief of police said at a press conference how they were working to catch the guys & the cops responding did a bang up job & the family took the brutal assault like champs all the while intermingling some jokes into the conference you'd be livid. That wouldn't be saying that the assault was the fault of the police; it'd just be saying the police chief made a bad situation worse by careless & unthoughtful remarks. & that's what the criticism of Bush's speech is. It's not assigning blame for the fed's actions. It's assigning blame for some rather unwelcome talk. He tried to paint a rosey picture (relatively speaking) instead of delivering the straight talk that was expected of him. Pesonally I'm still trying to find the spot in the constitution that allows for any federal funds to be spent on any sort of disaster recovery (as they're talking about) & I'm iffy on using federal resources for non-martial purposes like refugee evacuation. So I hold the feds blameless for any inactivity (& consequently blame them for exceeding the constitution where they aren't directly authorized to act) but most people don't share my views & they expect some accountability from the feds. Bush's speech does not ease those folks' concerns over whether or not the feds "care" or are doing all they can. It makes them think that he's covering up a bad performance by the feds, which doesn't help if you were already wondering whether the performance was bad or not.

Posted by: Publicola at September 03, 2005 04:57 AM (vC8Ev)

13 Mark, You don't seem to have too swift a grasp of how things get done in this country. The city has no resources that could attend to the levies, it is purely the domain of the Army Core of Engineers and for the Bush budgets they were allotted very little money. In fact in all the Bush budgets, congress increased the amount over the Bush proposal for the levies. So much is the fault of Bush's speech patterns and ignorance but, I agree, probably not the slow response to this disaster. He did, however, offer nothing in his remarks yesterday except his hesitant grin, disingenuous facial expressions which border on tics, a few staged hugs and his overarching allegiance to the hurricaneÂ’s maker. More evidence of intelligent design no doubt. I demand that the Stork Theory of Babies (STB) taught in public schools. Hey Pub, Why is it that the constitution is involved in the saving of American lives? Your parochial attachment to the Big Doc. is astounding. Raygun, You get dumber and more vile each time I read you. You also, I expected no lees, seem to be another big hearted guy with just the right sensitivity toward his fellow Americans. Go crawl back under your rock you racist pig and try to figure out how you would transport your sack of shit self 300 miles north with out a car, bus fare ( or no busses running), two kids under 5 and your infirm mom and no family support in another location. YouÂ’re a smart engineering student, IÂ’m sure you can solve this tiny little problem.

Posted by: Strawman at September 03, 2005 10:40 AM (0ZdtC)

14 Strawman (if that is your real alias) The constitution created the federal government & assigned certain functions to it. It also made clear that unless those functions were specifically mentioned that the federal government could not perform them. If the federal government is wanted to perform funcions that the constitution did not give it the power to do then it must be amended. When the federal government does what we consider to be good things despite its lacking the constitutional authority to do so it weakens the limits on the constitution, which makes it easier for the federal government to do bad things. Here is a brief glimpse into Madison's view of federal action regarding benevolent causes. Here is another post from the same blogger that speculates that by unconstitutionally subsidizing the risk of living in disaster prone areas the federal government may be making the problem worse (i.e. people don't have as much discouragement to live in those areas). It is not only potentially harmful in the short term but potentially very dangerous in the long term when the federal government starts living beyond its constitutional means. I know you subscribe to the "living constitution" pipedream, but even you must surely realize that when the plain text of a paper is ignored or twisted & convulsed to wring whatever meaning you wish out of it that text becomes worthless & to no effect. If you tell your kids in January that they have ot be in by 7 p.m. but constantly don't chastise them when they come in at 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. then by August you shouldn't be surprised if they don't take your restrictions seriously. Same with a constitution; if we do not hold the government to it when we think we might recieve benefit from it then how are we supposed to hold the government to it when it means to do us harm? & in Reagan80's defense, you're a bit quick to be jumping to conclusions of racism. Orleans is a real nice place to visit, but it's also fairly dangerous. A lot of that has to do with an entitlement/dependence mentality that is prevelant in a lot of large cities. Having a corrupt local government (& especially police force) doesn't help. There's a lot of crime & there are a lot of people committing those crimes. No mention was made of the race of the criminals, but you did imply that Reagn80's comments were racist. Now since Reagan80 only mentioned the "trash (dregs)" & "looting, murderous bastards" & he did not ascribe an ethnicity to them. However since you implied his remarks were racist it would be fair to assume that when he mentioned the "trash (dregs)" & "looting, murderous bastards" you did ascribe race to them. I'd say that would make it more likely that you have some racial prejudices than Reagan80 (or his uncle). when someone mentions "criminals" I don't think they're talking about black folks, or white folks, or hispanic folks. I just think they're talking about criminals. if you automatically assume they're talking about a certain racial group, then that's an indicaation that you have some stuff you need to work out. & as for who is to blame - any city that depends on a system to keep it from eing flooded does have the resources to keep that machinery going. But because of constitutionally questionable policies they abrogated their responsibility to the feds. If you arbitrarily say that I'm responsible for th esafety of your house then you cannot go pointing the finger at me when that safety is compromised. If the Army COE hadn't been assigned the responsibility then either New Oreleans would have squeezed the money & resources out of the cities budget or they would have let it sink & moved on. A is the mre likely course of action. & just for the helluvit it had nothing to do with the budget allocated - the levies were designed to contain a certain amount of water. That amount of water was exceeded. It would have taken building levees capable of conatining a larger amount of water, which was not a topic of discussion in the last several decades. You just can't realistically say that money was holding them back, when the levees functioned as they were supposed to. They underestimated the outcome of a storm as big as Katrina & no amount of cash would have helped as long as they set their sights on a lesser amount of water from a storm. Still, it falls on a city & possibly a state to ake preperations for that sort of thing. I simply cannot find a constitutional mandate for the feds to assume any responsibility whatsoever.

Posted by: Publicola at September 03, 2005 01:22 PM (vC8Ev)

15 Oh & Strawman, since you're not frightened to the point of being armed, tell me how would you protect your sack of shit self, 2 kids under 5 & your infirmed mom from the looters/rapists/thugs that seem to be so rampant in New Orleans? You're an expert in social interaction, I'm sure you'll be able to explain your magyver-ish solution so even I, the scaredy cat that I am, can understand.

Posted by: Publicola at September 03, 2005 01:26 PM (vC8Ev)

16 Pub, I'll wait for Ragun to tell me how, he is a very smart fellow, engineer, you know. Also, you gotta get some brevity, I don't have time to read all your hot air.

Posted by: Strawman at September 03, 2005 01:42 PM (0ZdtC)

17 Pub: The federal government's response becomes less crucial in proportion to how well the levee problem is handled in advance. New Orleans was well aware of the possibility of this exact scenario for a long time. To reduce the destruction of a city into barbs against the President and the federal response while (1) a hundred thousand citizens ignored evacuation orders and (2) decades of negligence went unaccounted for strikes me as unfair.

Posted by: Mark at September 04, 2005 01:58 AM (qI3ib)

18 Strawman, I understand. It must be time consuming enough to spout your own hot air. Get back to me when you have time to actually discuss your excercises in multi-synapse firing. Mark, I don't think the feds should take blame for their inactions. I think they should take blame for their actions that were not authorized by the constitution, but that's a seperate issue. If Bush would have either kept his mouth shut or talked like he had some sense then it wouldn't be being discussed, let alone misunderstood. I don't think anyone here is trying to blame bush for doing a poor job (although that could be argued - it's just not being argued in this post). Bush is getting reamed not for the fed's response, but for the poor quality of his speech. No matter how much the feds were or weren't doing, his speech was counter-productive to say the least.

Posted by: Publicola at September 04, 2005 05:58 AM (vC8Ev)

19 Thanks, Publicola. "You also, I expected no lees, seem to be another big hearted guy with just the right sensitivity toward his fellow Americans." You want to judge me, Strawman? Here's a checklist of all my relatives on my mother's side of the family that live in the Metairie area of N.O.-- - 1 uncle, his wife, 2 kids - 1 uncle, his wife, 2 kids - 2 grandparents - 1 uncle - 1 uncle That's 5 of my family's households in the N.O. area that could possibly be flooded or looted now. Since they all made it out of there safely and they're related to me, then I guess they aren't worthy of your sensitivity either. BTW, I've also been living in N.O. since Fall 2003, douchebag. "Go crawl back under your rock you racist pig and try to figure out how you would transport your sack of shit self 300 miles north with out a car, bus fare ( or no busses running), two kids under 5 and your infirm mom and no family support in another location." Not all of the people that stayed behind were poor innocent folks. There were quite a few career criminals(thugs) out there that chose to stay behind to take advantage of the post-Katrina chaos.

Posted by: reagan80 at September 04, 2005 06:57 AM (PNElP)

20 "Finally we have the dregs of the citizenry themselves who refused to leave when ordered out" Casca......... You are one ignorant fool. How can you be so demeaning and uncaring of another human being? Many of these dregs of the citizenry had no way of moving themselves out of harms way. We, as people have a obligatory right to help whomever, regardless of their social background or ethnicity. In fact, most of the comments on this page disgust me. You all are for pro-life, but when that life becomes reality, you are for letting that life go by the wayside. LetÂ’s hear it for the Christian Right!!!!

Posted by: alnino at September 04, 2005 09:44 PM (esYGy)

21 Ragun (I cajunized it now that I know where you hail from), Other than telling me of the good fortune of your relatives, who obviously had resources, you did not answer my question but made another specious comment to the effect that some remained behind and willfully entered this hell on earth because it made for good stealing. You are truly an idiot.

Posted by: Strawman at September 05, 2005 10:54 AM (0ZdtC)

22 Hey Pub, Do you call the remark -"nobody could have guessed the levee's would break"- poor quality or just plain stupid? EVERYBODY knew the levee's could and very well might break and or be overcome. Bush speaks poorly, always has, very poor command of the English language, (that is the price one pays for not reading) but the real problem is he lies with alacrity. Congratulating Brown for FEMA's response? There was no response. That would be like giving the medal of freedom to George Tenant for his exemplary work preventing the 911 attack. Oh, wait a minute, he did do that didn't he. What a schmuck.

Posted by: Strawman at September 05, 2005 02:02 PM (0ZdtC)

23 Annika, Only if it is a Brooklyn Lager and you promise to leave your Sig on the West coast.

Posted by: Strawman at September 05, 2005 02:06 PM (0ZdtC)

24 Strawman, Bush said some unwise things. But you misunderstand the nature of FEMA. They're not first repsonders - they're long temr responders. Figure in 3 to 4 days minimum before FEMA gets rolling. I didn't dig Bush's speech & I don't dig Bush, but I'm pretty sure it's for very different reasons than you. Alnino - "obligatory right"??? Please. Elaborate. I'm wanting to hear this. Last I heard a right was discretional - you could excercise it or not. Never heard of one that was madatory, let alone one that was based on the pretense of altruism. & I assume you're of the philosophy which claims we owe a duty to support every life we're capable of? In other words you'd be cool with abortion, but once the baby is viable you'd insist on supporting it from cradle to grave despite its own capabilities &/or actualities? Or rather, have everyone else support it for you? Strawman again - speaking of not answering questions - well you'll have to forgive me. Apperently my fear is acting up & that interferes with my reading & I just couldn't seem to make out how you said you'd provide for you & yourn's protection in a NO type enviroment since you're so not afraid of firearms that you wouldn't own one? Miss Annika, Never trust a man who gets demanding about gifts & insists you meet him unarmed.

Posted by: Publicola at September 06, 2005 04:08 AM (vC8Ev)

25 Oh, Pub, She can go armed, just not a German gun, I'm Jewish you know. As for you other request, I really can't tell you how I would have protected my family, far too hypothetical a question, whereas my question to Raygun is very reality based. The roads, buses, and such were pretty predictable as compared to a violent looter or two or ten armed or not in groups or not, encountered or not. You just want to bang the drum head of fear, your favorite motivation.

Posted by: Strawman at September 06, 2005 04:37 PM (0ZdtC)

26 Moxie's favorite troll: Sorry, I can't answer that question. You can't either so it doesn't matter. "Other than telling me of the good fortune of your relatives, WHO OBVIOUSLY HAD RESOURCES" Yeah, my stretched Hummer limousine awaits..... Publicola: You've dignified his posts enough with your responses. Quit while you are miles ahead. You can enjoy some of Strawman's(a.k.a. Mike) classic posts here on Annie's blog: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/splorp.cgi?entry_id=56018 Here's a sample: "How many saw the video from a battle earlier this year shown on CNN of an Iraqi writhing in the street wounded, when a GI laughs, pumps two more rounds into him and his buddies let out a few whoops and they all laugh. He tells a reporter a minute later "These guys are dead now, ya know, that's a good feeling. LetÂ’s do it again." Your army, not mine. Rubes and rednecks with guns. How do we rationalize the Apache pilots from the first gulf war yakking to each other over the radio as they play a video game of "rocket into truck" They were hovering and shooting rockets into trucks filled with retreating Iraqi soldiers. That's murder too or if you do it with a weapon "system" is it just cowardice or a war crime?" Before I go, I'll leave this parting thought for y'all to ponder: [Plus, can you imagine the outcry if the president had somehow forced a bunch of black people from their homes under the guise of a "mandatory evacuation"?]

Posted by: reagan80 at September 06, 2005 05:42 PM (71XrV)

27 What a bizarre country you guys live in! From the outside it's unbelievable that your "modern nation" is a disaster zone down south. We had a flood here last year. It was no big thing, but then, we don't all have guns left, right and centre. Looking at your State and Federal system - it's shocking. What's all this about a constitution that is not flexible? Are you really suggesting that those that are unable to move or require help should just die? And your "Fema" organisation - you said it takes 3 to 4 days to react. IS THAT REALLY GOOD ENOUGH? Do any of you have any idea that 10,000 people have died? You seem to be too busy firing cheap shots at each other not to have thought about the human tragedy. Get over your narrow minded issues. Forget politics, race, religion, mayors, right to life, etc. Focus on the raw issue. Then progress will follow. You can ask your questions and post your appalling snipes later. From abroad, this seems to be the scandal: USA knew that a storm was coming. Your government knew it was coming. Fema knew it was coming. Yet not much happened for days. So the city is 6 metres under water, next to the ocean, with poor (under financed) defences. Are you really that shocked that this happened? Bush is a shocker. He's done too little too late. You guys must be so red faced when ever he opens his mouth. He gives us Europeans a good laugh. So go on - throw your cheap shots at me too! It's fun watching you guys bitch all day!!

Posted by: Bob The Builder at September 06, 2005 06:14 PM (Xbt/8)

28 For anyone who wants to take a crack at Bob's condescening post, his IP address reveals that he is from England. No wonder he kept a secret.

Posted by: annika at September 06, 2005 06:57 PM (aTy6U)

29 Publicola I misspoke by saying an obligitory right (hell W misspeaks all of the time)... I should of said an obligitory duty. I was wrong in my wording but not my intent. As far as abortion, personally I feel that it is wrong. I fell that every life is important, but I also feel that freedom of choice is provided to us in the Constitution. And politics aside, YES we have an obligation to take care of all in need. Isn't that what W and the Christian Right read in their bibles? Hmmmmm, a sense a bit of hypocrasy coming out of DC these days.

Posted by: alnino at September 06, 2005 08:36 PM (esYGy)

30 At the risk of igniting a new thread, i have to ask out of curiosity, alnino: why do you feel that abortion is wrong? you may respond to me by email if you like.

Posted by: annika at September 06, 2005 08:48 PM (CHFQA)

31 Anni, What is there about Bob's post that is debatable? His observations about the pre- knowledge of the storm and the lack of preparedness are self evident. No debate necessary. Response was slow. I really don't know who to blame exactly but there is NO DOUBT the response could have been and should have better if someone was awake at the switch. Do I think if it had been Simi Valley that flooded and the folks on the roof had white faces and little blonde kids that the response would have been faster and more earnest-Yes. You only have to look at the press coverage of the missing children in this country. WHen did you ever see a TV or print news story of a missing black child that lasted more than a day? Racisim is institutionalized and runs very deep in America. RAYGUN, I stand by those two posts. In fact I showed the tape of those two event to someone yesterday. Turned her stomach and broke her heart. "Our soldiers did that" she exclaimed. "disgusting, I had no idea" It is making her think twice about the good people of Iraq and our president the Butcher of Crawford-war criminal. I know there are some bad people in Iraq but do you think killing 10000 good people- women and children, and decimating a society was the best way to get at them? Would you like me to email you the clips?

Posted by: Strawman at September 07, 2005 04:35 PM (0ZdtC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Here's some advice from Confederate Yankee on what we now know should be an essential item in every disaster readiness kit.

Linky thanks to the ever-vigilant Publicola.

Posted by: annika at 02:08 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I vote for the shotgun. Nothing scares a human more than facing a shotgun ready to go off. Consequently, you will probably not have to pull the trigger. The other advantage of a shotgun is that it is hard to miss when you do pull the trigger. I use a 1oz 00 buckshot shell. Some may think that shell is too small, but I don't want to remodel the house after I pull the trigger.

Posted by: Jake at September 02, 2005 02:29 PM (r/5D/)

2 See, you better believe I will be the new owner of a firearm in the near future. Possibly a lady S&W revolver. Still thinking... A friend accused me of being "too fearful" and told me "guns are not the answer" but you know what? Fear is what keeps humans alive. And I'd rather have a gun and not need it, than not have a gun and need one. Oh well.

Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at September 02, 2005 02:29 PM (kxatG)

3 i'm totally with you Amy. i never thought i'd want a gun either. i did grow up in the Bay Area after all. But now, after hearing the horror stories of lawlessness that can happen, i'm thinking differently. You know the same thing could happen in California when the "big one" occurs. People keep saying the "big one" is coming, and everytime we have a big earthquake, the experts say it was big but it's not the "big one." Which is really scary.

Posted by: annika at September 02, 2005 02:56 PM (yRmC2)

4 When I moved out of my dad's house to start my first real job in the city, he gave me three things: a Mossberg 12 gauge, a box full of various ammo, and a handshake. If there's one thing that I would add to Confederate Yankee's post is the consideration of location. If you live in an apartment building or heavily developed area, then you need to consider where a shot might go if you happen to miss. A pistol can be loaded with hydro-shock (or similar) ammo that will mushroom in a sheetrock wall as easily as it will in a would-be looter. A shotgun will blow a large hole in that same wall, but won't keep going like a rifle bullet will. I'd recommend a shotgun over a pistol simply because you need to stay in better practice with a pistol to be as effective with it. We'd all love to go to the range regularly, but that's not always practical. With some good initial practice, anyone can be effective with a shotgun without shooting regularly.

Posted by: Trevor at September 02, 2005 02:58 PM (GtBBB)

5 Amy, I've seen the repsonse you sai dyour friend had before. The best & most snarky way to reply is that guns are the answer; they've just not understood the question. Trevor, Hydrashoks or any other hollowpoint will act just like full metal jacket ammo when they hit sheetrock. They rely on fluidic materials to initiate expansion & sheet rock isn't thick enough or damp enough to initiate expansion - least not in any meaningful sense. There are frangible projectiles out there - it's just hollowpoints aren't them. & I could nit pick CY's post (which I will eventually - good naturedly of course - us gun nuts have to stick together even when internecine conflicts arise) but his advice is prety solid as is. He's not really worried about over pentration (i.e. going through walls) simply cause the main concern is to stop whoever is attacking you. What he speaks of isn't the usual aprtment dweller consideration where over pentration should be considered. & it's practical to go to a range. It may not be convenient but it's very damn practical. If you're in some place that it's not, then move. Shooting is like any other skill; you need to practice it periodically to maintain your skill level. & miss Annika - yw for the linky thanks (damn that sounds almost kinky) but Cali has many, many things to be scared of. Did I ever tell you how bad the gun control laws were out there...? But then again I'm just a fear peddlar & not to be taken seriously lol

Posted by: Publicola at September 02, 2005 05:35 PM (vC8Ev)

6 Cola, I'm not saying a sheetrock wall will stop a hydrashok (thanks for the spelling correction btw,) only that it reduces the projectile's ability to pentrate subsequent targets, hopefully rendering it less than lethal to anyone not placed directly on the other side. My point is that a shotgun's lower muzzle velocity offers better safety while allowing for less practice. While I agree with Kim Du Toit's notion of a Nation of Rifleman, I'm doubtful that it will become ubiquitous. You don't have to convince me of the usefullness. I specifically bought a a large tract of land on which I'm building a home so that I can practice at my convenience. I'm lucky, but most folks aren't. I'd rather they learn the basics of shotgun work than give up on regular pistol practice when they find they can't fit it into their daily grind.

Posted by: Trevor at September 02, 2005 07:30 PM (GtBBB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

First, read The Anchoress every day. Here's an excerpt from her post yesterday.

The sad people who sit around like self-gratifying monkeys, constantly working their hate, working it and working it, are longing for release - for an orgasm that can only occur upon the utter political, personal and (for some) physical destruction of a human being named George W. Bush. Until they have that destruction, and that orgasm, nothing else matters. Nothing. And nothing can be seen by them, except through the prism of that hateful desire.

. . .

Hate tends to consume the hater, and I read some of the remarks some folks are making and think…are you so in love with your hate that you cannot let it go long enough to say 'let us band together and put politics aside, for now…' because this really is not the time to drive political daggers - it is not the time to try to figure out if the traditionally Democratic leadership in this state or that contributed to a city’s unpreparedness and vulnerability. It is not the time to sit and seethe with resentment or guffaw in anticipatory glee about how 'this will sink the Repugs in ‘06!'

Trivia question: Name a disaster of any magnitude in which the government has not been criticized for responding too slowly. Hell, we had a building fire in Sacramento a few weeks back and the news for the next few days was all about why the local fire department took too long to arrive.

It's not just that state, local and federal agencies have been incompetent. The scope of the disaster would have made even a perfectly planned response seem incompetent. By way of thought experiment, here's a small example. Where are the busses to evacuate people from the Superdome? Flooded, by the hundreds in a parking lot. Why can't we fix them? All the mechanics are gone and there's no electricity. Why can't we get enough busses there from outside? Roads are flooded and destroyed. What looks like an adequate number of busses suddenly is inadequate as word gets out that busses are coming and even more people flock to the Superdome.

Another important lesson: the idea of a citizen militia as originally envisioned by the writers of the Second Amendment is not, repeat NOT, outdated.

Posted by: annika at 07:55 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 494 words, total size 3 kb.

1 You need to seriously refine your writing. It is so overwrought and unseemingly. Have you considered an essay class at the local community college?

Posted by: rextilleon at September 02, 2005 08:09 AM (fNfZ0)

2 You will pay dearly for that, Rex.

Posted by: reagan80 at September 02, 2005 08:16 AM (+eJCK)

3 One thing that is obvious to me is that there were a large number of people who, for a variety of reasons, did not or could not evacuate. This is not an unexpected disaster and it appears that the community of New Orleans had either inadequate or no plans on how to evacuate and shelter those who could not do so for themselves.

Posted by: shug at September 02, 2005 09:04 AM (U7X+u)

4 Excellent Annika. The same hate that drives the left in America is the same hate that drove the left to execute 80,000,000 people in other countries. That hate is a frightening thing. Just think how the people suffer in countries are where the government runs everything. We are getting a taste through Katrina what life in those countries is like. A life of desperation, despair and death.

Posted by: Jake at September 02, 2005 09:05 AM (r/5D/)

5 Uh, Rex. Refine your own writing. It's unseemly, not unseemingly. Have you considered going back to high school for remedial English classes? It just never ceases to amaze how people feel the need to make snide remarks on personal blogs.

Posted by: Blake at September 02, 2005 09:11 AM (SyBXi)

6 Hell yeah the idea of a citizen militia is not outdated -- what's unfortunate is that it took an event like this for me to realize it. Right now I am not entirely opposed to the idea of going out and buying myself a shotgun. I understand that people are hurt, lost, feeling desperate, and frustrated but it amazes me the magnitude in which there is a complete and utter disregard for the law; and the harm that is being directed toward those who are doing their best to HELP. Or maybe I just don't understand.

Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at September 02, 2005 10:50 AM (kxatG)

7 rex, didn't you see the title of the post? i did it in a rush... if you have trouble understanding my writing, it's usually better the more time i have to proofread and edit. However, i don't think i need to go back and take a remedial english course. i have one graduate degree and im working on another. my verbal SAT was at the top of the scale. Same for my LSAT. so don't worry about me, i should be teaching an essay writing class.

Posted by: annika at September 02, 2005 01:18 PM (zAOEU)

8 To: Annika Yes, the idea of a militia should be revived. To: Amy Bo Bamy May I recommend a Remington Model 870 12 gauge loaded with 00 buckshot?

Posted by: The Angle of Repose at September 02, 2005 01:44 PM (FNfV2)

9 Amy, If I rad right you're in Tx but ame from Hawaii? Purchasing a firearm in Texas involves minimal hassle but it's always better to have one & learn how to use it well before you need it. Hawaii though - it's one of the worst states for gun owners. A permit is required for any firearm; the issuing authority has arbitrary discretion over issuance; a one year epiration date for long guns permits; a 10 day expiration day for handgun permits; a minimum 14 dy wait for a permit to be issued once you apply; complete registration of all firearms; carrying is technical possible with a license but problematic at best, etc... I mention this cause Hawaii, being an island (chain) is much more likely to go through something like NO has than say Texas. So if you have family or friends still there or you ever think about heading back you might wanna try to get some of those laws changed. Rex, When the adults are through commenting, raise your hand & we'll get to you soon. really. we mean that. Miss Annika, You're one of the best writers I've seen. You shouldn't even take comments like Rex's seriously. But libertarians are only right about one thing? I think at least two; the point you mentioned & private actors (i.e. charities like the Salvation Army) are more effective at helping individuals than government is. I'll grant it's debatable to some extent & government can perform necessry roles, but if it weren't for the private actors think of how much worse things could be.

Posted by: Publicola at September 02, 2005 02:24 PM (vC8Ev)

10 Many of today's "progressives" seem to be capable of only two emotions: anger and resentment. Recent decades of leadership--by journalists, professors, and Democratic politicians--have instructed people that the proper response to any problem is *not* to think coherently about how to fix it, or to empathize with the victims, or to do something which actually helps--rather, it's to express one's rage.

Posted by: David Foster at September 02, 2005 02:55 PM (7TmYw)

11 "Where are the busses to evacuate people from the Superdome?" In the midst of all the fucking water, that people would still think ground transporation--and ground trasportation ONLY--is the best way to get large numbers of people out continues to strike me as something bordering on insane. Instead of dealing with flooded/destroyed/unstable roads, bridges and causeways into a city accessible only by a few choke points even at the best of times, um, the river's less than two miles straight down Canal Street from the Superdome.

Posted by: Dave J at September 02, 2005 08:28 PM (8XpMm)

12 "It's ironic that the very people who didn't trust the government when it told them to evacuate before the storm hit are now living in hell because they are waiting for the government to come and save them." Excellent point, Annika.

Posted by: Mark at September 03, 2005 02:44 AM (7xNjY)

13 "To: Amy Bo Bamy May I recommend a Remington Model 870 12 gauge loaded with 00 buckshot?" Or a mossberg? (in the same gague and ammo) Those two shotguns are the top selling. http://www.mossberg.com/

Posted by: cube at September 06, 2005 07:55 AM (nyNr0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

As you can see at the top of my sidebar, i have selected Catholic Charities for hurricane relief donation. Here's why i like them.

Louisiana is heavily Roman Catholic and i expect that many victims will rely on the Church for all sorts of help.

The Catholic Church is 2000 years old, it ain't going anywhere.

As i posted on Monday, Catholic Charities emphasizes long term recovery aid, and this disaster recovery will take a long time.

Catholic Charities is a separate entity from local archdioceses, and therefore there's no danger that my money might possibly be skimmed to pay for any scandal settlements. i would be uncomfortable donating through my own local parish's collection basket for that reason.

You don't have to donate to my chosen charity, but i'd encourage you not to wait if you haven't helped out yet. Pick a charity from N.Z. Bear's, Instapundit's, The Cotillion (Jody's), or The Bear Flag League's list and do what you can today.

Technorati tags: flood aid, Hurricane Katrina

Update: My Cotillion sister Sadie at Fistful of Fortnights is auctioning off two blog designs from Apothegm Designs, to benefit the American Red Cross or the Hurricane oriented charity of your choice.

Posted by: annika at 11:59 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 2 kb.

Just scooting around the blogosphere this morning i have seen quite a contrast in approaches to the Hurricane tragedy. One group of bloggers, a large one, led by Hugh Hewitt among others, is concentrating on helping those in need. Another group of bloggers is holding another less organized blogburst, which can only be described as a "Blame Bush" blogburst.

Why am i not surprised.

Could this map provide a clue as to why certain bloggers don't seem to care about the victims of Hurricane Katrina?

Like they say, adversity reveals character. If the blogosphere is any indication, i think we're seeing a distinct revelation of character in the response to this disaster, and lack thereof.

It's all about priorities. Some see people in need, and their first thought is to ask "Who can I blame?" Others see a tragedy and immediately ask "How can I help."

Posted by: annika at 07:54 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

Disclaimer: This is a post i don't expect everyone to agree with.

Perhaps due to the ongoing disaster in the Gulf states, and some personal tragedies that have hit an alarming number of my blog friends recently, i've been seeing an unusual number of posts that deal with faith and tragedy.

It's the age old question. Why do bad things happen to good people? What does a person of faith do when tragedy strikes? How does one deal? What happens to a person's faith in an all-powerful and all-loving God when that God takes a loved one for no apparent reason?

One book of the Bible supposedly deals with this very question. It's the book of Job. Perhaps i'm not alone when i say that Job never really made me feel better for reading it. It's a strange book, and it's not a comfort at all, really. i read Job all the way through a few years ago. Let's just say i needed to read it at the time and leave it at that.

Basically, the gist of the story is this, as i recall. Job is a good and righteous man who's been blessed with a nice family and lots of money. One day, God makes a bet with the devil about whether or not Job will reject God if He lets the devil completely fuck with Job's life. So the devil kills all of Job's family, takes all his stuff, and gives Job boils on his skin.

Job gets pissed, but doesn't blame God at first. The devil continues to fuck him up, so Job asks a friend to talk to God for him. That ends up nowhere, and Job finally gets on the line with the Big Guy himself. Now God is pissed, and He says to Job (i'm paraphrasing) "Dude, why don't you create the entire universe in six days. Then you can come back here and pop off to me. Until then, shut your pie hole. I do what I want and you don't get to know the reason."

Now there are plenty of other parts in the Bible where one can go for real comfort in times of despair, but Job is not one of them. God doesn't come off looking very nice in Job, but that's not the point of the story. It's kind of the tough talk part of the Old Testament. We may not like the message, but we need to hear it at least once.

God's smackdown to Job, is one of the most awe inspiring and majestic passages of the Bible. It is hard reading when you're in trouble, though. You never thought God could be this sarcastic either:

From out of a storm,
the LORD said to Job:
Why do you talk so much
when you know so little?
Now get ready to face me!
Can you answer
the questions I ask?
How did I lay the foundation
for the earth?
Were you there?
Doubtless you know who decided
its length and width.
What supports the foundation?
Who placed the cornerstone,
while morning stars sang,
and angels rejoiced?

Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?

Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?

Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.

What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?

Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?

Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!

My favorite holy day of obligation in the Catholic Church is the Feast of Christ the King. It's the last Holy Day of the liturgical year, and i think it's placed there for emphasis. It's a reminder to me that God is ruler over all. The universe is not a democracy, it is a monarchy and we are subjects of the King, not his equals.

Therefore i think it would be the height of arrogance for me to presume to know the mind of God. That's the lesson of the tower of Babel, and of the Book of Job. WTF, we humans can't even understand how light can act like both a particle and a wave. We don't know why neurons communicate across synapses. And every day, giant squid and great whales a hundred feet long fight death battles at the bottom of the sea that no man has ever witnessed. So for me to decide whether God is acting justly or unjustly, based on my own infinitely narrow vantage point on the universe, well it's the height of arrogance as i said.

i could choose to be pissed off at my own powerlessness, or i could find freedom in it. i never understand why so many people waste so much energy trying to reason God into or out of existence. Or trying to reason the nature of God. My knowledge that God exists was never based on reason. That knowledge is itself a gift from God and it remains in me as a result of my faith, not reason.

So i go on believing whether or not God's plan appears fair to me. i don't get to know the plan. Is that a cop-out? i don't think so. i think it's the essence of faith. If my faith were dependent on things like reason or observation or argument, it would be a very weak faith indeed. Yes, even my own mind, smart as i am, was created by Him.

Who endowed the heart with wisdom
or gave understanding to the mind?

So what does that mean? What about God's love that we hear so much about. Where does that fit into a universe that may or may not be cruel in a completely arbitrary way. Job asked:

from my deep despair,
I complain to you, my God.
Don't just condemn me!
Point out my sin.
Why do you take such delight
in destroying those you created
and in smiling on sinners?
Do you look at things
the way we humans do?
Is your life as short as ours?
Is that why you are so quick
to find fault with me?
You know I am innocent,
but who can defend me
against you?

It's the knowledge of my own inferior wisdom that has enabled me to never have a crisis of faith, even in times of despair. My spiritual weakness is one of devoutness, not doubt. i have crises of apathy, not belief. i'm going through one now, as a matter of fact. But God's love for this world is obvious to me every time i hear the Gospel. And that's what overcomes the pain i see at times too often to ignore.

Posted by: annika at 07:39 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 1373 words, total size 7 kb.

Searching for a poem about New Orleans this week was easy.

Charles Bukowski:

Young In New Orleans

starving there, sitting around the bars,
and at night walking the streets for
hours,
the moonlight always seemed fake
to me, maybe it was,
and in the French Quarter I watched
the horses and buggies going by,
everybody sitting high in the open
carriages, the black driver, and in
back the man and the woman,
usually young and always white.
and I was always white.
and hardly charmed by the
world.
New Orleans was a place to
hide.
I could piss away my life,
unmolested.
except for the rats.
the rats in my dark small room
very much resented sharing it
with me.
they were large and fearless
and stared at me with eyes
that spoke
an unblinking
death.

women were beyond me.
they saw something
depraved.
there was one waitress
a little older than
I, she rather smiled,
lingered when she
brought my
coffee.

that was plenty for
me, that was
enough.

there was something about
that city, though
it didn't let me feel guilty
that I had no feeling for the
things so many others
needed.
it let me alone.

sitting up in my bed
the lights out,
hearing the outside
sounds,
lifting my cheap
bottle of wine,
letting the warmth of
the grape
enter
me
as I heard the rats
moving about the
room,
I preferred them
to
humans.

being lost,
being crazy maybe
is not so bad
if you can be
that way
undisturbed.

New Orleans gave me
that.
nobody ever called
my name.

no telephone,
no car,
no job,
no
anything.

me and the
rats
and my youth,
one time,
that time
I knew
even through the
nothingness,
it was a
celebration
of something not to
do
but only
know.

Posted by: annika at 06:57 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.