Editor & Publisher has a story indicating that federal funding for hurricane and flood protection in New Orleans has been down recently, with the cut coinciding with the need for funds for Iraq.
In "Did New Orleans Catastrophe Have to Happen? 'Times-Picayune' Had Repeatedly Raised Federal Spending Issues," by Will Bunch (8/30), says that "after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA [the acronym for the flood control project] dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain."
The local officials are, according to the story, now saying that had Washington heeded their warnings about the dire need for hurricane protection, including building up levees and repairing barrier islands, "the damage might not have been nearly as bad as it turned out to be." The spending pattern does appear to back that up, although I don't doubt that local New Orleans officials are also desperate to escape being blamed by a very angry electorate for the current nightmare in that city.
The full story is here E&P
Something I am hearing very little about in regards to Bush's speech that compares WWII and Iraq if the fact that he gave an entirely new (officially, anyway) rationale for being in Iraq.
And it didn't come from some left-wing nut or conspiracy theorist, it came from the President of the United States of America.
The new reason? Oil. Not content to link 9/11 and Iraq, the president has expanded his war of analogies to encompass WWII. Funny how the prez, in the story below, cites his father's own service in WWII while comparing that war to Iraq. Last I looked, there were no Kennebunkport or Crawford Bushes within a continent of Iraq. And unless I missed the breaking news story, we have neither a draft nor rationing. Nor, by the way, do we have the kind of top heavy tax structure needed to pay for a war and prevent the most egregious examples of war profiteering. Apart from those and a few hundred other differences, you could probably compare WWII and Iraq. If you had an agenda to push. And no conscience. And low polling numbers. And a moderate wing of your own party nearing revolt. And several close advisors under investigation. And friends of advisers under investigation. And no contact with reality.
Evil:
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
But when arsonists kill a small child by setting the house on fire, evil isn't enough of a word.
A little humor, courtesy of No God Blog
A young woman teacher explains to her class of third graders that she is a born-again Christian. She asks the class if any of them are born-again Christians too.
Not really knowing what it means to be born-again, but wanting to please and impress their teacher, many little hands suddenly shot up into the air. There was, however, one exception. A girl named Sarah had not gone along with the crowd. The teacher asker her why she has decided to be different.
"Because I'm not a Christian."
"Then," asks the teacher, "what are you?"
"I'm an atheist."
The teacher is a little perturbed now, her face slightly red. She asks Sarah why she is an atheist.
"It's just that my family isn't religious. My Mom is atheist, and my Dad is atheist, so I am atheist."
The teacher is now angry. "That's no reason." she says loudly. "What if your Mom was a moron, and your Dad was a moron. What would you be then?"
"Then," says Sarah, "I'd be a born-again Christian."
All is not well in Bush Land. Like most people who are both arrogant and insecure (an observation that many have made about him), he does not respond well when he is questioned, probed, and attacked. He's talking about more sacrifice because he has nothing else to talk about, and can't believe that his carefully constructed public facade is starting to wear thin. That's something for which we all owe Cindy Sheehan thanks.
According to a by-lined piece on Capitol Hill Blue, our illustrious president is increasingly resorting to profane outbursts and anger at the Gods--not unlike Nixon in the throes of Watergate. The story describes an extremely profane, immensely irritable, epithet spewing character who couldn't be further from his carefully cultivated public image if he tried: [editor's note, by ~A!]I borrowed the word "hypochristian" from my good friend Eric Schwartz, the best folk revolutionary of our time. Go buy a CD.
This is so absurd I figured y'all would get a kick out of it. Just came down from the AP, Bush warns of more sacrifice in Iraq
I mean, really. One of the reasons that complete fools can get away with being complete fools while still retaining status and respect (from some quarters), is that we have such small memories and face such large amounts of information to be remembered.
By way of James Wolcott's blog of 8/23 (http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/08/me_tarzan_you_h.php), I wormed my way back through the memory hole to a glowing description of our illustrious president and his "Mission Accomplished" speech on the deck of the ship. For those who don't recognize the name, Micheal Ledeen is one of the less sane people involved in the American Enterprise Institute. Judging by his incredible grasp of the unreal shown in the following piece, it's safe to say that American Enterprise is in bad hands, indeed.
Editor & Publisher reports that "American Legion American Legion Declares War on Protestors -- Media Next?" (August 24, 2005). According to the E&P piece, the national commander, Thomas Cadmus, said ""The American Legion will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples."
Just wondering how the good commander intends to interpret that little phrase "anyone..that will..endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attack..." Do you think Mr. Cadmus intends for his organization's almost 3 million members to "stand against" Ann Coulter whose inflammatory rhetoric against Muslims probably makes great propaganda for recruiting new terrorists?
Or maybe Mr. Cadmus will begin a major push for the completion of an objective investigation of the role that the Department of Defense had in promulgating policies of torturing prisoners in Iraq. I understand that the pictures and stories of the torture have had a major inflammatory effect in the Muslim world, especially since many of the people tortured had absolutely nothing to do with terrorist activity.
Is that what the American Legion has in mind?
The bull is loose in the china shoppe, folks. John Bolton is causing an uproar in the UN, but not in a nice way, like as in "you should clean up your act". No, it's more like "Muah ha ha! Global warming doesn't exist, and all you poor folks should starve!" |
