COOL WEATHER VIDEO....
...located here. (you have to scroll down a little to see it.)
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
COME ON, DUBYA!
What ARE you thinking? What's the matter, too many American companies want to charge too much to manage our ports? Don't feel guilty enough taking on the Middle East? So now you want to turn over seaport operations to a state-owned UAE company? A Middle-Eastern country that has exported terrorists at that?
Michelle Malkin doesn't like this deal. (plus read this)
Neither does Neal Boortz.
Democrats, no surprise, are also opposed. But one Democrat thinks it's just swell:
Jimmy Carter.
If that ain't the kiss of death, what is?
What ARE you thinking? What's the matter, too many American companies want to charge too much to manage our ports? Don't feel guilty enough taking on the Middle East? So now you want to turn over seaport operations to a state-owned UAE company? A Middle-Eastern country that has exported terrorists at that?
Michelle Malkin doesn't like this deal. (plus read this)
Neither does Neal Boortz.
Democrats, no surprise, are also opposed. But one Democrat thinks it's just swell:
Jimmy Carter.
If that ain't the kiss of death, what is?
Friday, November 11, 2005
SORRY...
But I've been too busy to say anything here - been wrapping up projects in Atlanta, trying to get new business in Richmond, working on presentations in Miami, mentoring a project rehabilitation in Ft Lauderdale, and prepping to train a class in Jacksonville (where I am right now). Really quick notes:
Harriet Miers pulls nomination - good news there. James Taranto notes that she and Karl Rove were in attendance at a Federalist Society gala and received a round of applause when her presence was noted at the event. Considering this is the Federalist Society, the fact that conservatives applauded her is worthy of note. My 'ilk' and I at NRO never said she was incompetent, just that she wasn't worthy of the highest court in the land given her background. So I thought it was a nice and gracious touch for her to get that consideration.
Paris burning - bad stuff. Most insightful comment to date is from Jonah Goldberg, who says it's too easy to just dismiss this as Muslim rage perpetuating a religious agenda. Still, it's getting easier to understand France's recalitrance about dealing with Iraq - fear of the Islamic base back home.
Scooter Libby indicted - while I have tried to suppress my instincts that this is just a left-wing hatchet job, the facts are coming out that Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA must be the biggest open secret in Washington. If her job wasn't secret, Fitzgerald has no case. I guess somebody had to be indicted to keep the blood in the water to a minimum, but stuff like this is ugly politics.
Having a nice little 'discussion' at this site with someone named 'forty-two' (my favorite Douglas Adams number!). 42's his/her own site, here. (There's a Bear plug for you, 42!)
But I've been too busy to say anything here - been wrapping up projects in Atlanta, trying to get new business in Richmond, working on presentations in Miami, mentoring a project rehabilitation in Ft Lauderdale, and prepping to train a class in Jacksonville (where I am right now). Really quick notes:
Harriet Miers pulls nomination - good news there. James Taranto notes that she and Karl Rove were in attendance at a Federalist Society gala and received a round of applause when her presence was noted at the event. Considering this is the Federalist Society, the fact that conservatives applauded her is worthy of note. My 'ilk' and I at NRO never said she was incompetent, just that she wasn't worthy of the highest court in the land given her background. So I thought it was a nice and gracious touch for her to get that consideration.
Paris burning - bad stuff. Most insightful comment to date is from Jonah Goldberg, who says it's too easy to just dismiss this as Muslim rage perpetuating a religious agenda. Still, it's getting easier to understand France's recalitrance about dealing with Iraq - fear of the Islamic base back home.
Scooter Libby indicted - while I have tried to suppress my instincts that this is just a left-wing hatchet job, the facts are coming out that Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA must be the biggest open secret in Washington. If her job wasn't secret, Fitzgerald has no case. I guess somebody had to be indicted to keep the blood in the water to a minimum, but stuff like this is ugly politics.
Having a nice little 'discussion' at this site with someone named 'forty-two' (my favorite Douglas Adams number!). 42's his/her own site, here. (There's a Bear plug for you, 42!)
Friday, October 21, 2005
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER PLOTS THE EXIT STRATEGY FOR MIERS
Hey, he's only trying to help:
Hey, he's only trying to help:
...imagine the hearings. First she will have to pass an implicit competency test. As case upon case is thrown at her on national television, she dare not respond, as she apparently did to Sen. Chuck Schumer while making the rounds, that she will have to "bone up on this a little more." Then there will be the withering fire of conservatives such as Sen. Sam Brownback who will try to establish some grounds to believe that (a) she has a judicial philosophy and (b) it is conservative.Nope, they're not.
And then there will be the Democrats who, in their first act of political wisdom in this millennium, have held their fire on Miers, under the political axiom that when your opponent is committing suicide, you get out of the way. But now that Miers is so exposed on abortion, the Democrats will be poised like a reserve cavalry to come over the hills to attack her from the left -- assuming she has survived the attack from the right.
The omens are not good.
PORKBUSTERS TAKES A SETBACK
I don't have time to provide links or better research, but Senator Coburn (not sure what state he's from - see? Too busy to do homework.) tried to put together an amendment to reduce some of the pork going to certain pet projects - most notoriously, a half-billion dollar bridge in Alaska to serve 50 Alaskans. You conservative Republican government hard at work. The amendment failed overwhelmingly.
I'm planning on calling my senators - who voted against the amendment.
I don't have time to provide links or better research, but Senator Coburn (not sure what state he's from - see? Too busy to do homework.) tried to put together an amendment to reduce some of the pork going to certain pet projects - most notoriously, a half-billion dollar bridge in Alaska to serve 50 Alaskans. You conservative Republican government hard at work. The amendment failed overwhelmingly.
I'm planning on calling my senators - who voted against the amendment.
HARRIETT MYERS PETITION: OVER 6000
Not too late to sign!
Update 2006 - actually, it is now. Link's broken. But it's okay! We won!
Not too late to sign!
Update 2006 - actually, it is now. Link's broken. But it's okay! We won!
ANN COULTER ON HARRIETT MIERS
One person I wouldn't want to be upset with me.
Her first column on Miers - October 5. She defends the charges of elitism head-on:
One person I wouldn't want to be upset with me.
Her first column on Miers - October 5. She defends the charges of elitism head-on:
Bush has no right to say "Trust me." He was elected to represent the American people, not to be dictator for eight years. Among the coalitions that elected Bush are people who have been laboring in the trenches for a quarter-century to change the legal order in America. While Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s, Ed Meese, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork and all the founders of the Federalist Society began creating a farm team of massive legal talent on the right.Her 2nd column on Miers - October 12:
Conservatives from elite schools have already been subjected to liberal blandishments and haven't blinked. These are right-wingers who have fought off the best and the brightest the blue states have to offer. The New York Times isn't going to mau-mau them – as it does intellectual lightweights like Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee – by dangling fawning profiles before them. They aren't waiting for a pat on the head from Nina Totenberg or Linda Greenhouse. To paraphrase Archie Bunker, when you find a conservative from an elite law school, you've really got something.
There are more important things in life than being Supreme Court material, but – oddly enough – not when we're talking about an appointment to the Supreme Court. According to the Associated Press, Sen. Arlen Specter defended Miers on the grounds that "Miers' professional qualifications are excellent, but she lacks experience in constitutional law" – and Specter ought to know. This is like recommending a plumber by saying, "He's a very professional guy, but he lacks experience in plumbing."And now here's her latest column. She feels better about Harriet Miers....NOT.
I genuinely feel sorry for Miers. I'm sure she's a lovely woman, brighter than average, and well-qualified for many important jobs. Just not the job Bush has nominated her for. The terrible thing Bush has done to Miers is to force people who care about the court to say that.
From the beginning of this nightmare, I have taken it as a given that Miers will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I assume that's why Bush nominated her. (It certainly wasn't her resume.) Pity no one told him there are scads of highly qualified judicial nominees who would also have voted against Roe. Wasn't it Harriet Miers' job to tell him that? Hey, wait a minute ...Well, she wasn't too crazy about John Roberts, either.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
TIME RANKS 100 GREATEST BOOKS SINCE 1923
What? My autobiography isn't there?
Home sick today - aging digestive tract is rebelling.
This list is about as useless as you might think. Oh sure, they did think to add The Lord of Rings. Gone With The Wind is there, too. But no Atlas Shrugged? Well, that's okay, everybody has their own tastes....but wait a minute....
JUDY FRICKIN BLUME?????????
They found a spot for one of HER books?
I actually read - no, I endured "Tales of a Fourth-Grade Nothing," at the urging of my little brother, many, many years ago. A veritable waste of two weeks. Oh, it took barely a day to read it. I had to endure constant reminders of, "It's good! Really! It's really good! Wasn't it good? Why didn't you think it was good?" This from a man who would later think Chris DeBurgh's "Lady In Red" should be considered inspiring music.
Anyway, Are you there, God, it's Me, Margaret made the Time 100. Now, I checked with my wife - she considered it a perfectly readable book when she was 11 years old. And maybe it is (National Review Online, well, disagrees). Obviously it's superior to anything by that hack Ayn Rand. At least that what Time thinks.
What? My autobiography isn't there?
Home sick today - aging digestive tract is rebelling.
This list is about as useless as you might think. Oh sure, they did think to add The Lord of Rings. Gone With The Wind is there, too. But no Atlas Shrugged? Well, that's okay, everybody has their own tastes....but wait a minute....
JUDY FRICKIN BLUME?????????
They found a spot for one of HER books?
I actually read - no, I endured "Tales of a Fourth-Grade Nothing," at the urging of my little brother, many, many years ago. A veritable waste of two weeks. Oh, it took barely a day to read it. I had to endure constant reminders of, "It's good! Really! It's really good! Wasn't it good? Why didn't you think it was good?" This from a man who would later think Chris DeBurgh's "Lady In Red" should be considered inspiring music.
Anyway, Are you there, God, it's Me, Margaret made the Time 100. Now, I checked with my wife - she considered it a perfectly readable book when she was 11 years old. And maybe it is (National Review Online, well, disagrees). Obviously it's superior to anything by that hack Ayn Rand. At least that what Time thinks.
ON THE LIGHTER SIDE OF MIERS...
Check out her blog!
(note - it's a satire)
(image 'borrowed' from her website)
Check out her blog!
(note - it's a satire)
(image 'borrowed' from her website)
MORE ON MIERS:
The more we learn about Harriet Miers, the scarier things get. Look, I think that Roe v. Wade was bad law. I think that, given sane reflection and consideration, it will eventually be overturned. (Note to abortion 'fans' - if you want to legalize it, you should have to do it the legislative way like everybody else.)
Miers signed support for the Human Life Amendment back in Texas umpteen years ago does not impress me. Well, la-dee-da. I don't care what legislation she supports. That has minimal bearing on how well she would do as a judge. You see, judges, particularly Supreme Court Justices, aren't supposed to consider prospective laws. They're supposed to consider and rule on laws already on the books, and consider them in the light of the Constitution. And not the laws of foreign countries, by the way.
If you haven't guessed by now, I have a pretty strict view of the Constitution. It wasn't always that way. I remember going to school and learning that somehow, the Constitution was a living document - that it's meanings were subject to fresh interpretations given new perspectives and customs. It made perfect sense back then. But then I didn't hear the entire story. No one bothered to tell me about the Federalist Papers.
But it was the Living Document claptrap that made it possible for bad rulings to slip by, like Griswold v. Connecticut. That case was over a simple matter of the right to buy birth control pills, back in 1965. I don't believe in penumbras and emanations in the Constitution. But I have to tell you, if you twist words just enough, you can do pretty much anything you want. Here they fudged a questionable right to privacy out of a bad ruling, and things have gone downhill ever since.
Anyway, regarding Griswold v. Connecticut - Miers was in fact asked about that case, and did she think it was a fair ruling. Why, yes, she said, yes it was. At least that's what Sen. Arlen Specter thought he heard. She later said that she really had no position and she was misunderstood.
Back when Roberts was nominated, I recalled that the idea of putting a SCOTUS nominee in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee is a fairly new concept in our nation's history. Only in the last 30 years have nominees been brought before the committee. It simply wasn't considered necessary before. The sad spectacle of Robert Bork was probably the worst, with the Clarence Thomas hearings close behind. I really didn't think it was necessary or prudent to parade John Roberts in front of a committee to see if he was good enough - his background and reputation should be clear enough to anyone. However, Harriet Miers has proved me wrong, I think. Because there is such a thin background, because we don't know what her court persona will be, that we only have Bush's recommendation to commend her, well, we all want to see who this nominee is.
I think she's going to turn out to be an embarrassment. Her 'obvious' pro-life views will penalize her in the eyes of the Democrats, who will have to vote her down, if only to appease the pro-choice people. Senators on the Republican side MIGHT be enough to get her confirmed, but if she doesn't do well in the hearings, she'll go down in flames. If she's half as smart as Bush says she is, she might do all right. But current events don't seem to be in her favor.
The more we learn about Harriet Miers, the scarier things get. Look, I think that Roe v. Wade was bad law. I think that, given sane reflection and consideration, it will eventually be overturned. (Note to abortion 'fans' - if you want to legalize it, you should have to do it the legislative way like everybody else.)
Miers signed support for the Human Life Amendment back in Texas umpteen years ago does not impress me. Well, la-dee-da. I don't care what legislation she supports. That has minimal bearing on how well she would do as a judge. You see, judges, particularly Supreme Court Justices, aren't supposed to consider prospective laws. They're supposed to consider and rule on laws already on the books, and consider them in the light of the Constitution. And not the laws of foreign countries, by the way.
If you haven't guessed by now, I have a pretty strict view of the Constitution. It wasn't always that way. I remember going to school and learning that somehow, the Constitution was a living document - that it's meanings were subject to fresh interpretations given new perspectives and customs. It made perfect sense back then. But then I didn't hear the entire story. No one bothered to tell me about the Federalist Papers.
But it was the Living Document claptrap that made it possible for bad rulings to slip by, like Griswold v. Connecticut. That case was over a simple matter of the right to buy birth control pills, back in 1965. I don't believe in penumbras and emanations in the Constitution. But I have to tell you, if you twist words just enough, you can do pretty much anything you want. Here they fudged a questionable right to privacy out of a bad ruling, and things have gone downhill ever since.
Anyway, regarding Griswold v. Connecticut - Miers was in fact asked about that case, and did she think it was a fair ruling. Why, yes, she said, yes it was. At least that's what Sen. Arlen Specter thought he heard. She later said that she really had no position and she was misunderstood.
Back when Roberts was nominated, I recalled that the idea of putting a SCOTUS nominee in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee is a fairly new concept in our nation's history. Only in the last 30 years have nominees been brought before the committee. It simply wasn't considered necessary before. The sad spectacle of Robert Bork was probably the worst, with the Clarence Thomas hearings close behind. I really didn't think it was necessary or prudent to parade John Roberts in front of a committee to see if he was good enough - his background and reputation should be clear enough to anyone. However, Harriet Miers has proved me wrong, I think. Because there is such a thin background, because we don't know what her court persona will be, that we only have Bush's recommendation to commend her, well, we all want to see who this nominee is.
I think she's going to turn out to be an embarrassment. Her 'obvious' pro-life views will penalize her in the eyes of the Democrats, who will have to vote her down, if only to appease the pro-choice people. Senators on the Republican side MIGHT be enough to get her confirmed, but if she doesn't do well in the hearings, she'll go down in flames. If she's half as smart as Bush says she is, she might do all right. But current events don't seem to be in her favor.
SIGN THE PETITION!
Are you a frustrated conservative? Wouldn't you like your President to just act like one? Did the nomination of Harriet Miers go one bridge too far?
Then sign the petition.
Are you a frustrated conservative? Wouldn't you like your President to just act like one? Did the nomination of Harriet Miers go one bridge too far?
Then sign the petition.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
REPUBLICAN CANNIBALISM IN RHODE ISLAND:
The National Republican Senatorial Committee is sponsoring ads in Rhode Island, defending RINO Senator Lincoln Chafee against challenger Steve Laffey. The ads themselves sound pretty childish, using a cartoon image to portray "Laffeyland Tales."
Here is my letter to the NRSC:
UPDATE: http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200510180823.asp
The National Republican Senatorial Committee is sponsoring ads in Rhode Island, defending RINO Senator Lincoln Chafee against challenger Steve Laffey. The ads themselves sound pretty childish, using a cartoon image to portray "Laffeyland Tales."
Here is my letter to the NRSC:
Why are you using NRSC dollars to attack Republican challengers? Shouldn't this money be better spent going after Democrats?Sigh.
I'm referring specifically to the campaign ads sponsored by the NRSC to attack candidate Steve Laffey, who is running against Chafee.
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2005/10/national_party_.html
What are you going to do if Laffey wins?
UPDATE: http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200510180823.asp
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
ALL CONSIDERED, IT'S STILL A COOL OBITUARY:
Theodore Roosevelt Heller, 88, loving father of Charles (Joann) Heller; dear brother of the late Sonya (the late Jack) Steinberg. Ted was discharged from the U.S. Army during WWII due to service related injuries, and then forced his way back into the Illinois National Guard insisting no one tells him when to serve his country. Graveside services Tuesday 11 a.m. at Waldheim Jewish Cemetery (Ziditshover section), 1700 S. Harlem Ave., Chicago. In lieu of flowers, please send acerbic letters to Republicans. Arrangements by Chicago Jewish Funerals, Douglas MacIsaac, funeral director 847-229-8822, www.cjfinfo.com.If I have the opportunity, maybe I should have something like this: "In lieu of flowers, caustic conservative letters to the editor should be sent to the AJC."
Thursday, October 06, 2005
SUPREME COURT NEWS:
With the words, “Trust me,” Bush has nominated Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. And everyone is scrambling to find out who this Ms. Miers is. One can certainly say that from a jurist perspective, her resume is a bit thin. Sure, she’s run a law firm. She's performed in various capacities of government, most notably as the head of the Texas Lottery Commission. Maybe she’s the stellar candidate for the job – the President thinks she is. But the more I learn about her, the more depressing it gets. Let’s set aside that she was once a contributor to Democratic campaigns, or that she has pursued feminist agendas up to only a few years ago. Rather than tell you what I think – in my words, I’ll let you read what other, more experienced pundits have to say:
First up, George Will. He’s all over Bush for his “Trust me” comment:
Professor Bainbridge was one of the first out of the gate to denounce the nomination. His first broadside was right to the point:
With the words, “Trust me,” Bush has nominated Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. And everyone is scrambling to find out who this Ms. Miers is. One can certainly say that from a jurist perspective, her resume is a bit thin. Sure, she’s run a law firm. She's performed in various capacities of government, most notably as the head of the Texas Lottery Commission. Maybe she’s the stellar candidate for the job – the President thinks she is. But the more I learn about her, the more depressing it gets. Let’s set aside that she was once a contributor to Democratic campaigns, or that she has pursued feminist agendas up to only a few years ago. Rather than tell you what I think – in my words, I’ll let you read what other, more experienced pundits have to say:
First up, George Will. He’s all over Bush for his “Trust me” comment:
The president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked … whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, "I agree." Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, "I do."McCain-Feingold is a travesty, so Bush’s nominees are not going to get a free pass on his word alone. Sorry.
Professor Bainbridge was one of the first out of the gate to denounce the nomination. His first broadside was right to the point:
1. She's 60. There were lots of highly qualified younger candidates out there who would have sat on the court for decades.As for the last two comments, even the President has indicated that he was looking for a woman to replace O’Conner. A pretty ugly political play so far.
2. She has no judicial experience.
3. She has no public track record of proven conservative judicial values (what happened to Bush's 2000 promise to appoint people in the old of Scalia and Thomas?). How do we know she won't be another Souter? or Kennedy?
4. She's a Bush crony, which is an unfortunate choice for an administration that has been fairly charged with excessive cronyism (anybody remember ex-FEMA head Mike Brown?).
5. Her resume pales in comparison to those of some of the other leading candidates.
6. Why is the leader of a party that is supposedly against affirmative action making an appointment that can only be explained as an affirmative action choice?
7. And if Bush was bound and determined to make an affirmative action choice, why not go with a more experienced and qualified woman like Edith Jones or minority like Emilio Garza?
Monday, October 03, 2005
Sunday, September 25, 2005
FIREFLY IS BACK!
Well, it's never really BEEN back - ruthlessly cancelled by FOX before a full season could be completed back in 1993, producer Joss Whedon promised to put together a movie-version of the show. In the meantime, it's been released on DVD, and the episodes are being re-aired on the Sci-Fi Channel...and now the movie is ready for release. If you've seen the trailer it looks hot! (Check out their website by clicking here.) I had some early comments about the show here.
I'm not exactly a Joss Wheden fan - Buffy never captured my attention with the limited amount of time I have to watch TV (and I'm sure I'll get tons of hate mail just for saying that) - but I like the unique vision he presents in the story.
This is the synopsis that sets up the movie:
Well, it's never really BEEN back - ruthlessly cancelled by FOX before a full season could be completed back in 1993, producer Joss Whedon promised to put together a movie-version of the show. In the meantime, it's been released on DVD, and the episodes are being re-aired on the Sci-Fi Channel...and now the movie is ready for release. If you've seen the trailer it looks hot! (Check out their website by clicking here.) I had some early comments about the show here.
I'm not exactly a Joss Wheden fan - Buffy never captured my attention with the limited amount of time I have to watch TV (and I'm sure I'll get tons of hate mail just for saying that) - but I like the unique vision he presents in the story.
This is the synopsis that sets up the movie:
Joss Whedon, the Oscar® - and Emmy - nominated writer/director responsible for the worldwide television phenomena of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE, ANGEL and
FIREFLY, now applies his trademark compassion and wit to a small band of
galactic outcasts 500 years in the future in his feature film directorial
debut, Serenity. The film centers around Captain Malcolm Reynolds, a
hardened veteran (on the losing side) of a galactic civil war, who now ekes
out a living pulling off small crimes and transport-for-hire aboard his
ship, Serenity. He leads a small, eclectic crew who are the closest thing he
has left to family –squabbling, insubordinate and undyingly loyal.
It opens September 30. Check it out.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
DOWN BUT NOT OUT...
As bad as it's been in New Orleans - tens of thousands of homes flooded, millions displaced, things are hopeful for the long run.
Satellite pictures of before and after in New Orleans here.
Live blogging from these people in the middle of the action. Hope their food (and diesel fuel!) holds out.
Great summary from Peggy Noonan.
Neal Boortz also said that the military bases slated for closing would be a great place to house refugees. And add me to the list of folks who think that trucking them to Houston's Astrodome is a really dumb idea. Drop them in the middle of another city with no real supporting infrastructure for food and water? Sigh.
Shooting looters? Hard to argue with Instapundit's analysis:
But blaming Bush for the flooding is nothing less than stupid. New Orleans has been a fat target for a crisis for years. The Corps of Engineers should have been on top of this for years. The levees have been sinking all this time, through a lot more presidents than Bush. The pumps around the city seem woefully inadequate for a real emergency. And Louisiana and New Orleans can share in the blame for their shortsightedness.
As bad as it's been in New Orleans - tens of thousands of homes flooded, millions displaced, things are hopeful for the long run.
Satellite pictures of before and after in New Orleans here.
Live blogging from these people in the middle of the action. Hope their food (and diesel fuel!) holds out.
Great summary from Peggy Noonan.
Neal Boortz also said that the military bases slated for closing would be a great place to house refugees. And add me to the list of folks who think that trucking them to Houston's Astrodome is a really dumb idea. Drop them in the middle of another city with no real supporting infrastructure for food and water? Sigh.
Shooting looters? Hard to argue with Instapundit's analysis:
When I was on Grand Cayman last month, several people told me that looting became a problem after Hurricane Ivan, but quickly stopped when the police shot several looters. That's because looters usually value life over property too.As for me, I'm disappointed in our President's response. A major city has been totally, completely devastated. Troops should be there. The mobilization order should been issues as soon as Katrina targeted New Orleans.
But blaming Bush for the flooding is nothing less than stupid. New Orleans has been a fat target for a crisis for years. The Corps of Engineers should have been on top of this for years. The levees have been sinking all this time, through a lot more presidents than Bush. The pumps around the city seem woefully inadequate for a real emergency. And Louisiana and New Orleans can share in the blame for their shortsightedness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)