This event reminds me of something Annikus Gibbon once wrote:

And the great Emperor, deaf to the woes of his people, said unto them, 'lo, let us build a great ski slope in the middle of the village, and let them jump off it with skis, and afterward, they shall have sourdough bread, and circuses.'

Posted by: annika at 06:56 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

Am i the only one who sees ABC's new weekly Hillary propaganda show for what it is? They even have a fake blog to promote the thing.

Apparently President Allen is supposed to be an Independent, who was picked for VP to balance out a Republican ticket. The fake blog describes her as a "centrist." The plan is clear: get middle-of-the-roaders used to the idea of a female president in time for Hillary's run.

i won't watch that show with Emelio Estevez as president. But i'm a big fan of both Geena Davis and Donald Sutherland, so i'll have to give this propaganda reel a chance tomorrow night. Hopefully it won't be too sickening.

Posted by: annika at 07:40 PM | Comments (53) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

It was still one of the most difficult things to watch in the history of tv news. But the finger pointing it spawned needs to be revised.

Posted by: annika at 01:56 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

"The purpose of union activism used to be to protect the worker. But now, the primary purpose of unions has become the weakening various target institutions.

"The Democratic party has become nothing more than a such a union, which chooses as its target the United States of America."

Posted by: annika at 10:02 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's two questions i've been wondering about. i bow to your expertise, so please leave any thoughts you might have in the comments.

1. In the event of an extended period of civil unrest, when finding ammunition might become an issue, is it better to have a gun that shoots a common caliber of ammunition like 9mm, or is it better to have something that will use a less common caliber. Think of a donut shop. Normally, you'll always be able to get glazed donuts, but after the morning rush, maybe all you'd find are those disgusting brown crullers that nobody likes.

2. In the city, is it a good idea to advertise gun ownership with a sticker or say, posting a particularly good silhouette in your garage? Would this cause bad people to stay away, or would they simply watch more carefully for their chance to break in and try to steal your gun when you're out?

i will be blogging lightly for the next few days, but i'll check in to read. In the meantime, don't forget to give what you can for hurricane relief.

Posted by: annika at 08:21 AM | Comments (47) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

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.

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

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.

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