I will be taking Labor Day off, so RWN will not return until Tuesday. Until then, enjoy the links to other blogs below and consider this an open thread. Have a great week-end!

The Baseball Crank

Conservative Outpost

The Foretelling Of A Deadly Disaster In New Orleans. Originally Published On Dec. 1, 2001

Nicole Gelinas: A Perfect Storm Of Lawlessness

The Interdictor

The Irish Trojan's Blog

The Jawa Report

Klingon Fairy Tales

No Oil for Pacifists

The Politburo Diktat

Six Meat Buffet

Snopes On The Looting Vs. Finding Photos

Qualls Memorial Fund

You Big Mouth, You!

-- As each day passes, the staggering incompetence of the local government in New Orleans becomes more and more glaringly apparent. From the very beginning, it was obvious that they were either unwilling or unable to enforce order after the hurricane.

Now, it has also become apparent that they had massive numbers of buses that could have been used to get people out of the city before or after the hurricane. Where are those buses now? In the water.

But, the thing that really proves the ineptness of Ray Nagin & Company is the Superdome. They set the building up as a storm shelter, yet they apparently didn't stock food, they had no way to evacuate people from the building, and they haven't even been able to maintain order in the building. Not only are there people being killed in the Superdome, they're stuffing them in a freezer, for God's sake.

It's almost as if they thought they could announce that the city needed to be evacuated, open up the Superdome, and then they were done....

-- Despite many complaints, I don't think the Feds have been slow to help at all. The reason that perception is there is because the government of New Orleans has been so tragically useless. Anywhere else, the city government would have been competent enough to hold things together at least for a little while, whereas the local government in New Orleans collapsed from the getgo.

James S. Robbins has more:

"The New York Times has called the military response “a costly game of catch up.” Catching up compared to what, one wonders. National Guard units were mobilized immediately; 7,500 troops from four states were on the ground within 24 hours of Katrina — a commendable response given the disruptions to the transportation infrastructure. The DOD response is well ahead of the 1992 Hurricane Andrew timetable. Back then, the support request took nine days to crawl through the bureaucracy. The reaction this time was less than three days officially, and DOD had been pre-staging assets in anticipation of the aid request from the moment Katrina hit. DOD cannot act independently of course; the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the lead agency. Requests for assistance have to be routed from local officials through FEMA to U.S. Northern Command and then to the necessary components. In practice, this means state officials have to assess damage and determine relief requirements; FEMA has to come up with a plan for integrating the military into the overall effort; DOD has to begin to pack and move the appropriate materiel, and deploy sufficient forces. This has all largely been or is being accomplished. Seven thousand mostly Navy and other specialized assets are currently in the area directly supporting hurricane relief, and a much larger number of other forces are en route. The process has been functioning remarkably smoothly under the circumstances.

It is hard to understand what more should, or realistically could have been done up to this point. A disaster of this magnitude is certain to be politicized, but it seems early in the game to be assessing blame for a response effort that has only been underway a few days in a crisis that is still developing; particularly such a rapid response."

-- There has been some talk of opening New Orleans back up in 3-4 months and that may be the case for certain parts of it, but it wouldn't surprise me if we're a year or two out -- at least -- before the city can really start getting back on its feet.

Keep in mind that they're saying it may take a month (*** I'm now hearing 80 days ***) to pump all the water out of the city. Then after that's done, you'll still have a combination of rotting flesh, chemicals, gas, and sludge on top of everything. Plus, a good portion of the city will need to be bulldozed.

Then, it's not as if you can build houses, bridges, restaurants, gas stations, hospitals and all the other things that make a big city work overnight. Heck, we haven't even started building back the WTC and that was knocked down in late 2001.

On top of all of that, you have to wonder how many people and businesses are even going to want to come back. A lot of them, after getting money from insurance or the government, may just decide to "take the money and run" rather than wait, let's say 12-18 months, to resettle.

--

"Does anyone doubt that if 1,2,3... a dozen looters had been shot the first day New Orleans would be a better place today?" -- Jonah Goldberg

Spot-on!

-- These comments from rapper Kayne West are just particularly disgusting and inappropriate: "George Bush doesn't care about black people... They're saying black families are looting and white families are just looking for food...They're giving the (army) permission to shoot us."

First of all, let's just clear some things up.

The Bush administration didn't choose the racial make-up of New Orleans, they didn't pick out where the hurricane came to land, and they didn't decide who was going to ignore the order to evacuate. So, if it turns out that mostly black people happened to be in New Orleans when the hurricane hit, the Bush administration had nothing to do with that.

If the city government has failed the people of New Orleans in the midst of this crisis, well, they're Democrats from top to bottom, so again, that has nothing to do with the Bush administration.

As far as federal aid goes, this isn't a fairy tale. Bush doesn't have a magic lamp and he can't wish the National Guard troops onto every corner and bottles of water into every hand. That being said, the federal government is absolutely pouring manpower, equipment, and supplies into the region. Many of them are there now and more are coming.

Last but not least, when it comes to the gangs of thugs out terrorizing people in the street, yeah, they might get shot. But why does Kayne West identify with the black thugs, not with their victims who are almost certainly black as well? Getting the gangs under control isn't just some excuse to harm black people, it's about protecting the citizens remaining in New Orleans, the majority of whom are black.

-- A couple of days ago, Henry Copeland from Blogads contacted me and suggested I help set up a free Blogad for hurricane relief.

Henry had tried to get in touch with the Red Cross, but had no luck. So, I decided to try the fine folks at Mercy Corps. After talking with some of their people, they got me the info for an ad, Henry helped set things up on the back-end, and the rest is history.

This week, Mercy Corps will be getting millions of free page views all across the right side of the blogosphere from blogs like Instapundit, Power Line, Michelle Malkin, & Polipundit, among many other conservative blogs.

As we get ready to head into what will be for many of us a vacation week-end, I'd like to encourage you to chip in some money to Mercy Corps. Not only are they experienced, they actually hand out 92 cents on the dollar and eat up only 8 cents in overhead. There aren't many charities you're going to find that are more efficient at using donations.

Furthermore, it's great if you want to give them a bundle, but every little bit counts. If you want to give Mercy Corps $5, $10, $20, hey, that's fantastic. It may not seem like a lot of money, but if it buys dinner for some poor guy who lost his house in New Orleans, you've done a good thing.

*** Update #1 ***: You can actually see video of Kayne West moronically muttering the quote mentioned above here

Poor Mike Myers is standing beside him and trying to be professional, but ever so often he looks over at Kayne and you gotta believe he's thinking, "How did I get stuck on stage with this idiot?"

How about clicking on just a few of my advertisers? Just 2 or 3 them? Please? It would really help me out...

Conservative Grapevine
Freedom Stone T-Shirts
Jack Lewis
Matt Furey Combat Conditioning
MyPublicInfo
Place A Bet On Iraq
Politically Incorrect Gazette
RighTalk
RightWingStuff
Stop The ACLU
VitaminUSA

Dennis Hastert has gotten a lot of flack for some comments he made about New Orleans:

"It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a city that's seven feet under sea level, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said of federal assistance for hurricane-devastated New Orleans.

``It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed,'' the Illinois Republican said in an interview Wednesday with the Daily Herald of Arlington Heights, Ill.

...Hastert, in a transcript supplied by the suburban Chicago newspaper, said there was no question that the people of New Orleans would rebuild their city, but noted that federal insurance and other federal aid was involved. ``We ought to take a second look at it. But you know we build Los Angeles and San Francisco on top of earthquake fissures and they rebuild too. Stubbornness.''

There are ``some real tough questions to ask,'' Hastert said in the interview. ``How do you go about rebuilding this city? What precautions do you take?''

Hastert later issued a statement saying he was not ``advocating that the city be abandoned or relocated.''

``My comments about rebuilding the city were intended to reflect my sincere concern with how the city is rebuilt to ensure the future protection of its citizens and not to suggest that this great and historic city should not be rebuilt,'' the statement said."

Of course, the left is already complaining about this, but a few people on the right have gotten in on the act as well.

For example, I received an email from RWN reader Melissa Thompson, who said:

"As avid readers of your site, we would appreciate any comments you might make on Congressman Hastert's disgusting comments today on not rebuilding the city of New Orleans....(A)s a Republican, Hastert's comment embarrass the hell out of me, and strike me more as something some atheist Democrat would say at this time of extreme vulnerability in the city."

The folks over at QandO said basically the same thing:

"Yeah, no kidding. Fine. I even see your point.

But now is not the time for stupid insensitive statements like that. Now is the time to be getting your fat @ss out and seeing if you can expedite some help, maybe from the state you represent, Mr. Speaker."

I've got to tell you that not only do I agree with Dennis Hastert's sentiments, I agree with the timing.

Why?

Because after a big natural disaster, there is always enormous pressure on politicians to do something now, now, now! They're supposed to fly over the disaster zone, give reassuring speeches, and then appropriate gargantuan sums of money as fast as possible to prove they care. Any sort of delay in doing any of these things is treated as icy and nearly inhuman indifference to human suffering...and keep in mind, this is one of the biggest natural disasters in American history. That means the pressure is going to be ratcheted up that much higher. That's why tomorrow, the House is supposed to: "return for an emergency session Friday to approve some $10 billion in federal aid for hurricane victims."

Of course, that's understandable. It's vitally important to establish order in New Orleans, evacuate the city, help the people who are displaced, etc., etc. Those things need to be done and they need to be taken care of as quickly as possible.

Going beyond that, the problem here is that in a very short period of time, maybe in just a matter of weeks, our legislators will likely be spending tens of billions of dollars more and making far reaching decisions about the future of New Orleans. Moreover, it's entirely possible that little critical thinking will be involved because of the aforementioned political pressure.

That would be an enormous mistake.

New Orleans is a city that is, at least in the United States, uniquely vulnerable to big hurricanes. Despite the fact that they've known that for decades, not only were their defensive measures against a big hurricane woefully inadequate, the city has been completely hamstrung in their response afterwards. We're talking about a city that can't even maintain public order or properly evacuate the Superdome. Of course, the fact that much of the city is under 15 ft. of water has a lot to do with that, but however you slice it, it should still be noted that the local government, despite plenty of forewarning, wasn't able to protect the city from Katrina and has been nearly helpless since the storm hit.

So, who's to say that if we pour 40 billion dollars into New Orleans, the whole city won't be wrecked again in exactly the same manner in another decade? As a matter of fact, given how long New Orleans had to prepare for this hurricane and the dismal results, a better question at this point might be why would we think the city wouldn't be destroyed again if it was hit by another hurricane in the future?

That's why people should be glad Hastert had the guts to speak up. There are some very hard questions that need to be asked about the rebuilding of New Orleans and the answers need to add up. If they don't, then maybe we should be encouraging people to move elsewhere. Maybe some parts of the city shouldn't be rebuilt. Maybe we should be asking if it's even possible to protect the city from a category 4 or 5 hurricane? These are things that need to be seriously discussed by experts before we open up the federal coffers for rebuilding a city on the coast that's in effect, in the middle of a colossal soup bowl.

What it all comes down to is that the people who have been effected by this hurricane deserve our compassion. But, as we move forward, we need to make sure that compassion is tempered by reason. Call that insensitive if you like, but a few tough questions today could end up saving 50 billion dollars and thousands of lives a few years down the road...

*** Update #1 ***: Melissa writes back:

"I read your response to my and others' comments on Hastert and the rebuilding of New Orleans. By your logic, and those of the commentors, Los Angeles should not have been rebuilt after the last earthquake, right? And certainly no areas affected by the tsunami should be rebuilt, because they are prone to another. Florida? All those low levels in the midwest along the Mississippi river that flooded several years ago?"

Each situation is unique and it has to be looked at that way. In the case of New Orleans, they're uniquely vulnerable to hurricanes for a city their size and their entire city has been in essence destroyed because of that despite decades of preparation.

So, before we start throwing enormous sums of money at the problem, let's ask the pertinent questions, starting with: Can we prevent this nightmare from happening again or does the location of New Orleans mean there's not much that can be done?

If the answer is "nothing we can do", then we shouldn't pump let's say 50 billion dollars into a city that will be wiped out every time it's hit with a big hurricane. If the answer is "yes," then we spend the money on rebuilding, but strings should be attached to part of the money to make sure this doesn't happen again.

What we don't want to do is follow Washington's usual procedure in a situation like this, which amounts to: open up our wallets now and ask questions later, lest someone think we're being insensitive.

PS: I'd say the exact same thing about rebuilding the houses of some of those people who live beside of parts of the Mississippi river that are particularly flood prone.

In these days and times, when you actually have people claiming that to be compassionate, you've got to be pro-looting, I'd say that opposing price gouging laws would definitely be considered an "alternative view."

But, rising prices caused by a disaster are nothing more than the result of supply and demand. If the demand for a product suddenly explodes, you can generally expect that the product will increase in price or it will run out. In other words, it's a trade off and you have to pick your poison.

The thing is, most people bitterly resent it when prices soar after a disaster, but generally don't get as piqued about shortages. However, I take the opposite view: we're better off having needed products available at higher prices.

Here are excerpts from a couple of older columns that'll help explain how price gouging actually benefits consumers after a disaster. First, here's Sheldon Richman:

"A natural disaster creates a new and acute demand for flashlights, batteries, lumber, blankets, water, and so on. The pre-disaster price for those things was determined by the pre-disaster demand. If prices did not rise in response to the new higher demand, the shelves would be quickly emptied. In fact, the first few customers might buy up all of a store’s supply, leaving nothing for the people who arrive later. But if the price rose to meet the new conditions, the early buyers would tend to buy less, postponing satisfaction of their least urgent needs until things returned to normal. For example, if bottled water remained at its lower pre-disaster price, early shoppers might buy more than their families needed for drinking—they might buy some to water their plants. Others looking for drinking water would be out of luck. But if the price were allowed to rise, the first shoppers would tend to buy less, leaving water for other families' vital needs.

Thus anti-gouging laws may appear to be in the interest of all consumers, but they actually benefit early shoppers at the expense of latecomers.

...Without anti-gouging laws, alert suppliers in unaffected areas, looking for higher profits, would divert their needed products to the stricken area. One might be tempted to condemn such “profiteering,” but that would be shortsighted. New supplies now would be available for people in need. Besides that, the competition from additional goods would keep prices from rising as high as they would have otherwise."

Here's more from Thomas Sowell, who writes about hotel room prices in the aftermath of hurricanes in Florida:

"Among the complaints in Florida is that hotels have raised their prices. One hotel whose rooms normally cost $40 a night now charged $109 a night and another hotel whose rooms likewise normally cost $40 a night now charged $160 a night.

Those who are long on indignation and short on economics may say that these hotels were now "charging all that the traffic will bear." But they were probably charging all that the traffic would bear when such hotels were charging $40 a night.

The real question is: Why will the traffic bear more now? Obviously because supply and demand have both changed. Since both homes and hotels have been damaged or destroyed by the hurricanes, there are now more people seeking more rooms from fewer hotels.

What if prices were frozen where they were before all this happened?

Those who got to the hotel first would fill up the rooms and those who got there later would be out of luck -- and perhaps out of doors or out of the community. At higher prices, a family that might have rented one room for the parents and another for the children will now double up in just one room because of the "exorbitant" prices. That leaves another room for someone else.

Someone whose home was damaged, but not destroyed, may decide to stay home and make do in less than ideal conditions, rather than pay the higher prices at the local hotel. That too will leave another room for someone whose home was damaged worse or destroyed.

In short, the new prices make as much economic sense under the new conditions as the old prices made under the old conditions.

It is essentially the same story when stores are selling ice, plywood, gasoline, or other things for prices that reflect today's supply and demand, rather than yesterday's supply and demand. Price controls will not cause new supplies to be rushed in nearly as fast as higher prices will."

As Thomas Sowell is fond of saying, "There are no solutions...(t)here are only trade-offs." Having supplies in stock during a crisis are worth the trade off of having rising prices...

Fears increased today among hundreds of thousands of refugees from the hurricane-ravaged gulf coast as they faced a Labor Day weekend with little hope of an eloquent speech from President George Bush.

As today's New York Times editorial indicated, the president "gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom".

Instead, the president devoted his first major post-Katrina address to laying out what the federal government is actually doing to help with disaster recovery.

One New Orleans man, currently living in the 'Plaza End Zone' section of the Superdome as he awaits news of his missing family members, said, "I can survive for some time with little water, no food and highly unsanitary conditions...but if I don't hear some poetic words of comfort and stirring verbal imagery from the president pretty soon, I'm a goner."

A White House spokesman said additional speech writers have been flown in to accelerate completion of "a magnificent, almost-Clintonesque display of rhetorical compassion." However, it could take up to a week of pronunciation rehearsal before the president is ready to deliver the speech to the nation.

This satire was used with the permission of Scrappleface.

Well, this kills another meme going around on the left....

"The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Thursday that a lack of funding for hurricane-protection projects around New Orleans did not contribute to the disastrous flooding that followed Hurricane Katrina.

In a telephone interview with reporters, corps officials said that although portions of the flood-protection levees remain incomplete, the levees near Lake Pontchartrain that gave way--inundating much of the city--were completed and in good condition before the hurricane.

However, they noted that the levees were designed for a Category 3 hurricane and couldn't handle the ferocious winds and raging waters from Hurricane Katrina, which was a Category 4 storm when it hit the coastline. The decision to build levees for a Category 3 hurricane was made decades ago based on a cost-benefit analysis.

"I don't see that the level of funding was really a contributing factor in this case," said Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, chief of engineers for the corps. "Had this project been fully complete, it is my opinion that based on the intensity of this storm that the flooding of the business district and the French Quarter would have still taken place."

Strock also denied that escalating costs from the war in Iraq contributed to reductions in funding for hurricane projects in Louisiana, as some critics have suggested. Records show that corps funding for the Louisiana projects has generally decreased in recent years.

Several critics, including a former head of the Corps of Engineers, suggested in a Tribune story Thursday that the flooding in New Orleans could have been less severe had the federal government fully funded projects to improve the levees and drainage in the city.

Congress in 1999 authorized the corps to conduct a $12 million study to determine how much it would cost to protect New Orleans from a Category 5 hurricane, but the study isn't scheduled to get under way until 2006. It was not clear why the study has taken so long to begin, though Congress has only provided in the range of $100,000 or $200,000 a year so far." -- The Chicago Tribune

Apparently they don't make those bleeding heart liberals like they used to...

"I'm not going to post the piece I started to write.

My original reaction to the Katrina catastrophe was going to be: "NOT ONE DIME."

For an hour or so, I contemplated the idea of turning it into a crusade: No-one in the blue states (where the money is) should give one dime of aid to the victims of this hurricane, which devastated Bush-friendly regions.

Why did I flirt with such a callous attitude?

Because it should be obvious to all that this tragedy was not just an act of God. Dubya and his diety conspired to transform mere disaster into an unprecedented mega-catastrophe.

...So why was I thinking of starting a movement against giving aid to the stricken areas?

Because these are red states. They voted for Bush. These ninnies obviously wanted these policies, and they deserve to live with the consequences of their votes.

A large part of me still believes that many of these W-worshipping numbskulls deserve to suffer and to die. They brought it on themselves. Let them look to Jayzuss for aid: It's time they stopped leeching off the more productive blue staters.

(Californians stupidly give much more to the federal government than we receive from it; the money flows in a very different direction in the red states.)

So, at least, I started to write. But then (to paraphrase the old song) I thought I'd better think it out again.

Many of the victims, the ones who have suffered the most, are poor. The hardest hit were the blue state folk living among the red state maniacs. New Orleans, we should note, went heavily for Kerry.

And that's why we must help. Although it was very tempting to say otherwise.

But let us make one thing clear: We WILL politicize this issue." -- Excerpts from a post by Joseph Cannon at The Brad Blog

Hat tip to Chrenkoff for the quote.

Katrina Damage Could Hit $50 Billion

Hastert Questions Rebuilding New Orleans

Gunmen Target Medical Convoy

Relief Workers Confront 'Urban Warfare'. Violence Disrupts Evacuation, Rescue Efforts In New Orleans

Officials Struggle To Reverse A Growing Sense Of Anarchy (Free NYT Reg Req)

Bush Warns Looters, Urges Americans Conserve Gas

Bush To View Hurricane Devastation Friday

Congress to Vote on $10B Katrina Package

Europe On Standby To Send Petrol To US

Kuwaiti: 'The Terrorist Katrina' Is A Soldier Of Allah'

Walmart Gives 15 Million Dollars In Katrina Aid Plus Free Diapers, Baby Wipes, Food, Formula, Tootbrushes, Bedding And Water

The McCormick Tribune Foundation Will Match The First $2,000,000 Contributed To Hurricane Relief At 50 Cents On The Dollar

Oklahoma City University Offers Free Tuition to Any Student Affected by Hurricane Katrina

Boy Saves 13 People

Fats Domino Is Missing In New Orleans

Police: Miss. Man Kills Sister Over Bag Of Ice

Pets Not Allowed On Evacuation Buses From The Superdome (Ridiculous)

Ebay: Hurricane Katrina Protection Services

Stephen Moore: Flat Tax Revolution -- An Idea Whose Time Has Come--Just Not Here

The WSJ: The New Constitution Has More Virtues Than Risks

Mark Steyn: Why I Remain An Optimist On Iraq (Free Spectator Registration Required)

Website Of The Day: Lutheran World Relief

This is just surreal...

"Police say storm victims are being raped and beaten inside the New Orleans Convention Center.

About 15,200 people who had taken shelter at the convention center to await buses grew increasingly hostile.

Police Chief Eddie Compass says he sent in 88 officers to quell the situation at the building, but they were quickly beaten back by an angry mob.

Compass says, "We have individuals who are getting raped, we have individuals who are getting beaten."

He says tourists are walking in that direction and they are getting preyed upon.

In hopes of defusing the unrest at the convention center, Mayor Ray Nagin gave the refugees permission to march across a bridge to the city's unflooded west bank for whatever relief they can find. But the bedlam appeared to make leaving difficult."

So we have people getting raped, beaten, and "preyed upon" and the police are being "beaten back?" Were their guns lost in the flood? If not, pull out the guns and see who beats back who.

"Oh, Hawkins, you should have more compassion..." Oh, I have compassion all right, but it's for the poor people who are being raped, beaten and murdered, not for the mob.

It's much better that the police put some members of that mob on a slab if necessary than to allow a group of thugs to run wild. The police should show some spine, do their jobs, and establish order...

*** Update #1 ***: From CNN:

"Nightfall and rising violence threatened to further disrupt relief efforts Thursday in New Orleans as authorities rescued residents still trapped in the flooded city and evacuated thousands of others living among corpses and human waste.

The director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Michael Brown, said his agency was attempting to work "under conditions of urban warfare."

...Police warned a CNN crew to stay off the streets because of escalating danger, and cautioned others about attempted shootings and rapes by groups of young men.

...One displaced resident at the Louisiana Superdome...described scenes of lawlessness and desperation, with people simply dragging corpses into corners.

"They have quite a few people running around here with guns," he said. "You got these young teenage boys running around up here raping these girls."

The kid gloves need to come off because this cannot be allowed to continue. These looters and thugs are disrupting the rescue efforts and terrorizing the people still left in the city. The government should use as much force as is necessary to restore order and they should do it ASAP...

"This President is never gonna do the right thing. I think somewhere deep down inside him he takes a lot of joy about losing people, if he thinks they vote Democrat or if he thinks they're poor, or if he thinks they're in a blue state, whatever his reasons are not to rescue those people..." -- Air America's Randi Rhodes

At the Drudge Report, there's a big, splashy headline that says, "BUSH VOWS TO SAVE NEW ORLEANS."

Here's a basic question that needs to be asked: should we "save" New Orleans?

Keep in mind that the damage done to New Orleans isn't a surprise. To the contrary, people have known for decades that the city was vulnerable to massive flooding & big hurricanes. Furthermore, in recent years, there have been numerous articles foretelling the havoc we're seeing today on TV -- and worse. For example, here are some excerpts from a 2002 piece called Hurricane Risk for New Orleans:

"And just across the Mississippi River, Walter Maestri is struggling to help New Orleans prepare. Maestri is the czar of public emergencies in Jefferson Parish (that's the county that sprawls across a third of the metropolitan area). He points to a map of the region on the wall of his command post.

"A couple of days ago," explains Maestri, "We actually had an exercise where we brought a fictitious Category Five Hurricane into the metropolitan area."

The map is covered with arrows and swirls in erasable marker. They show how the fictitious hurricane crossed Key West and then smacked into New Orleans.

When the computer models showed Maestri what would happen next, he wrote big letters on the map, all in capitals.

"KYAGB—kiss your ass good bye," reads Maestri.

"Because," says Maestri, "anyone who was here when that storm came across was gone—it was body-bag time. We think 40,000 people could lose their lives in the metropolitan area."

And some scientists say that figure is conservative. People have known for centuries that New Orleans is a risky spot — the biggest river in North America wraps around it; and most of the land is below sea level. But researchers say they've been learning just how grave the problem is, only in the last few years. And they say the city and the nation aren't prepared to handle it."

"And there's another reason why scientists worry more about hurricanes every single year. There's always been a huge natural buffer that helps protect New Orleans from storms. There are miles of wetlands between here and the Gulf of Mexico: they slow hurricanes down as they blow in from the sea. But that buffer is disappearing. Every year, a chunk of wetlands the size of Manhattan crumbles and turns into open water.

Joe Suhayda explains, "So the hurricane can move closer to the city before it starts to decrease. So in effect, the city is moving closer to the Gulf as each year goes by."

And he says, it's partly because of those levees along the Mississippi River. When they stopped the river from flooding, they also prevented the wetlands from getting the regular doses of floodwater and mud that they need to survive. Studies show that if the wetlands keep vanishing over the next few decades, then you won't need a giant storm to devastate New Orleans — a much weaker, more common kind of hurricane could destroy the city too."

"Maestri says imagine what happens if a huge storm hits just to the east of the city.

"The hurricane is spinning counter-clockwise, it's now got a wall of water in front of it some 30 to 40 feet high, as it approaches the levees that surround the city, it tops those levees," describes Maestri. "The water comes over the top - and first the communities on the west side of the Mississippi river go under. Now Lake Ponchetrain— which is on the eastern side of the community—now that water from Lake Ponchetrain is now pushed on the population that is fleeing from the western side, and everybody's caught in the middle. The bowl now completely fills and we've got the entire community under water, some 20 to 30 feet under water."

Remember all those levees that the U.S. Army built around New Orleans, to hold smaller floods out of the bowl? Maestri says now those levees would doom the city, because they'll trap the water in.

"It's going to look like a massive shipwreck," says Maestri. "Everything that the water has carried in is going to be there. It's going to have to be cleaned out— alligators, moccasins and god knows what that lives in the surrounding swamps, has now been flushed -literally—into the metropolitan area. And they can't get out, because they're inside the bowl now. No water to drink, no water to use for sanitation purposes. All of the sanitation plants are under water and of course, the material is floating free in the community. The petrochemicals that are produced up and down the Mississippi river—much of that has floated into this bowl... The biggest toxic waste dump in the world now is the city of New Orleans because of what has happened."

"Federal officials are so stunned by these sorts of findings that they're rethinking their assumptions about New Orleans. Officials in the U.S. Army say, 'There's got to be a way to prevent some of that devastation.' So they'll study whether they should build more levees and build them higher. They'll study whether the region needs new highways, so people can evacuate faster.

Critics say, 'We don't need more construction, we need less.'

Oliver Houck from Tulane University says, "Stop the foolishness of permitting yet more residential development. We are granting permits every week for new subdivisions right in the path of where this stuff is going to go. We're still covering those people with flood insurance, Daniel."

And state and federal officials are asking Congress to launch a massive project to restore the region's natural defenses. They want billions of dollars to try to rebuild some of the crumbling wetlands, which buffer New Orleans from hurricanes raging up from the Gulf. Scientists say that's the best way to save the city: make that ancient shield of wetlands strong again.

But even if the country started those projects tomorrow, it would take decades to see results."

After reading all of this, you've got to ask yourself: Do we really want to rebuild what amounts to a major city in a saucer? A city that's below sea level, that's probably going to be vulnerable to big hurricanes no matter what we do?

Maybe this sounds outrageous to some people, but I question whether we should be sinking 30-40-50 billion dollars into a city that's probably always going to be one hurricane away from total ruination.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should short the people who lost their homes and businesses in New Orleans because we certainly should help them get back on their feet. However, maybe, just maybe, we should SERIOUSLY CONSIDER asking people to settle somewhere else lest we end up repeating these exact same events in a decade or two...

Here's a fascinatingly nutty take on hurricane Katrina: it's God's revenge for America's support of Sharon's plan to remove the Jews from Gaza. No, seriously!

Here's an explanation from a kook named Stan Goodenough at a website called Jerusalem Newswire (which incidentally, I've never heard of):

"Yesterday, we in Israel watched as American officials, including President George W. Bush, ordered the mandatory evacuation of New Orleans and its surrounds. That small depression had turned into a frightening fiend. Now we are seeing on our television screens up to a million people being forced to leave their homes. People are weeping on camera, mourning that they are going to lose “everything we own; everything we have worked for.”

As today unfolds we are bracing to see wind and water pounding homes, whole communities, into the ground.

Is this some sort of bizarre coincidence? Not for those who believe in the God of the Bible and the immutability of His Word.

What America is about to experience is the lifting of God’s hand of protection; the implementation of His judgment on the nation most responsible for endangering the land and people of Israel.

The Bible talks about Him shaking His fist over bodies of water, and striking them.

While the “disengagement” plan was purportedly the brainchild of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the United States of America has for more than a decade been the chief sponsor and propeller of a diplomatic process that has dangerously weakened Israel in the face of an overwhelming, growing threat to annihilate her.

In the context of the last 12 years of peace-process history, and not withstanding the desire of many on Israel’s left to go ahead with this process, the Sharon disengagement plan was something that was forced on Israel, primarily by the United States.

...Many in America couldn’t have cared less about Jews being forced out of their homes and losing everything they have built. Here in Israel, many Jews will be feeling for the Americans who are now facing similar tragedies, tragedies brought about by the forces of heaven rather than through the political power of men.

Can’t you see the link, America? Won’t you see the link?"

No, I'll be missing that link. But, Rabbi Lazer Brody from a blog called Lazer Beams? Oh, he is feeling that link baby! Yeah baby yeah!

"Katrina is hitting just as the bulldozers are completing the destruction of Gush Katif. The Talmud teaches that Hashem administers the world according to the "ATFAT" principle, in other words, "a turn for a turn" (for an elaboration of the ATFAT principle, see Chapter Six of The Trail to Tranquility). My heart tells me that there's a link between the forced expulsion of 8500 people from their blood, sweat, and tear-soaked homes in Israeli Gaza and between the nearly 850,000 people who are forced to flee from their homes in Louisiana. Sharon, at the prodding of the American government, has destroyed hallowed centers of prayer, Torah learning, and settlement in the Land of Israel. Hashem isn't wasting much time in showing His wrath. In fact, Katrina has chosen Ms. Rice's home state as a target; I humbly believe that the unfortunate people of Louisiana can blame Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice for their misfortune. This is a classic ATFAT situation: He who creates exiles in the Holy Land, will have a hundred-fold exiles in his own land.

...Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice, I implore you to repent, to ask Hashem's forgiveness for destroying a flourishing part of Israel. Cancel all your demands for further territorial concessions in Israel. If by your initiative more Jews are rendered homeless, G-d forbid, I shudder to think of what could happen. Please take Katrina very seriously, for she is a no-nonsense messenger from The Almighty."

Yes, that's right, according Rabbi McCrazyLazer, God is targeting Condi Rice's home state with a hurricane to teach her a lesson. One problem though: Condi Rice was born in Alabama, spent a good portion of her life in California, and currently lives in DC. So if the big guy was actually targeting Condi Rice, I think it was mostly a swing and a miss since Alabama got off comparatively light.

But come on: who really believes God would target the United States of all nations for hassling Israel? Don't get me wrong, I mean, I'm not wishing anything bad on any nation or people, but if America deserves a hurricane for how we treat Israel, then you'd have to figure there'd be just sizzling black holes where the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran used to be by now. On top of that, you'd have to expect that practically every other country in the worlld would be covered with locusts, frogs, and pools of blood where the fresh water used to be.

Given all the crap we take for sticking up for Israel, you'd figure that even the loons would be willing to give us at least that much credit...

Hat tip to the fine folks at Kesher Talk for the story.

In her latest column, Peggy Noonan defends looting for necessities, but she thinks looters stealing non-essentials should be shot. From my perspective, that's sort of a "glass half-full" sort of argument. But, let's focus on the empty half of the glass. From Noonan's column:

"There seems to be some confusion in terms of terminology on TV. People with no food and water who are walking into supermarkets and taking food and water off the shelves are not criminal, they are sane. They are not looters, they are people who are attempting to survive; they are taking the basics of survival off shelves in stores where there isn't even anyone at the cash register."

While I like and respect Peggy Noonan and other conservatives who're making this argument (like Jonah Goldberg), this is completely bogus. It's an example of conservatives taking a position they know is morally wrong just because they don't want to be perceived as "mean." It's also -- in almost every case -- hypocritical. Why do I say that? Let me give you an example:

Let's say Peggy Noonan had a nice, nifty house somewhere in New Orleans. Being an intelligent woman, she hears about hurricane Katrina and heads out of the city. Well, unbelievably, it turns out she got lucky. Her house had a little wind damage, but it wasn't flooded.

Now, let's say 20 people start walking down the street and they notice Peggy's nice house. One of them figures food is in there and he walks up to the front door, with the other 19 people standing right behind him, and gets ready to kick down the door. So he rares back and....stop, right there.

If you're Peggy Noonan, do you consider that man not to be a criminal, to be "sane," and do you hope he kicks in the door of your house? See, I'd be almost 100% sure that if she were being honest, she'd say "no."

In fact, knowing conservatives as I do, I can tell you that most of them would be willing to give away food and water if they had any extra, but they would also be willing to pull out a gun to keep those people out of their home, even if they were safely across the street in no danger.

So why should someone else's property be any different? Who is Peggy Noonan or anybody else to suddenly declare that somebody else's property suddenly belongs to whomever happens to want it? We have a hurricane and suddenly we have normally sensible conservatives who start sounding like Vladimir Lenin.

"Oh, but, John, it's a crisis and it's OK to steal things in a crisis." Since when?

Besides, what's the difference between: "Gee, I decided to stay in town after I was told to evacuate and I'm hungry," and "Gee, I didn't want to get a job and I'm hungry?" In either case, it's hunger caused by your own irresponsibility. It's nice, it's charitable to help people out in either situation, but in neither case does the fact that a person is hungry give them the right to just take whatever they want.

Even setting all that aside, human nature being what it is, if people are openly stealing food and water in broad daylight, other people will see that and take it to the next level. The idea that you can have groups of people kicking in the doors of supermarkets and taking food and water without inspiring other people to take all the whiskey, electronics, and whatever else they can find is pure unadulterated fantasy. You don't get to pick your own particular comfort level when it comes to anarchy, you get the whole, ugly ball of wax.

What it all comes down to is that the whole idea that there's "good looting" and "bad looting" makes no practical sense. Do people think that if someone kicks in the door of a WalMart and grabs water and canned food, they're a good looter, but if they grab a $10 watch on their way out -- they suddenly turn into bad guys? Should the cops be standing around, allowing people to loot food and water, but shoot anyone who comes out with a TV? If two people want to steal the same jug of water, is it first come first served, or is it OK to steal things from the other people who are stealing things? What if a Salvation Army van rolls down the street at that very moment with donated food and water? Are the people who continue stealing food and water from Walmart suddenly bad guys again? How about if it's coming in two hours, but you're hungry now?

This is the sort of chaos we end up with when we have people condoning looting -- and, yes, before you ask, this is (probably) my last looting post, but this whole, "It's OK to loot," attitude is just anathema to a civilized society and more people need to step up and say just that...

"Katrina has nothing to do with global warming. Nothing. It has everything to do with the immense forces of nature that have been unleashed many, many times before and the inability of humans, even the most brilliant engineers, to tame these forces.

Giant hurricanes are rare, but they are not new. And they are not increasing. To the contrary. Just go to the website of the National Hurricane Center and check out a table that lists hurricanes by category and decade. The peak for major hurricanes (categories 3,4,5) came in the decades of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, when such storms averaged 9 per decade. In the 1960s, there were 6 such storms; in the 1970s, 4; in the 1980s, 5; in the 1990s, 5; and for 2001-04, there were 3. Category 4 and 5 storms were also more prevalent in the past than they are now. As for Category 5 storms, there have been only three since the 1850s: in the decades of the 1930s, 1960s and 1990s." -- James K. Glassman

If you're looking to donate some money to help the victims of hurricane Katrina, may I suggest the Salvation Army?

They're a well known, reputable charity and they actually hand out 83 cents out of every dollar, so you know they're not frittering away a lot of money on overhead.

So, if you're looking to help, the Salvation Army, is a great place to donate money.

PS: Do keep in mind that they're swamped with donations right now, so keep in mind it may, understandably, take a little while for the page to load.

*** Update #1 ***: By the way, if you have trouble getting to the Salvation Army page, you may want to try Mercy Corps. They hand out 91 cents out of every dollar donated so again, you're getting a lot of bang for your buck.

Katrina May Have Killed Thousands

New Orleans Mayor: "We Are Looking At 12 To 16 Weeks Before People Can Come In"

Officials Helpless Against Looters

New Orleans Declares Martial Law To Crack Down On Looters

Levee Repair Work Has Yet To Begin. Engineers Plan To Intentionally Breach Some New Orleans Floodwalls

At Least Ten U.S. Airports Face Closure Due To Jet Fuel Shortages

20 Oil Rigs Missing In Gulf Of Mexico: US Coast Guard

"US Gasoline Prices Are Now In The Process Of The Most Dramatic Spike Ever Seen"

Ouch! $6 Gas Near Atlanta

White House To Release Oil From Reserves

President Bush Views Damage From Air Force One

Katrina Floodwaters Trap Couple In Alligator-Filled Ditch

800 Killed In Iraq Bridge Stampede

US Troops Free Reuters Cameraman

A Federal Grand Jury In Los Angeles Today Indicted Four Men — Including The Leader Of A State Prison Gang — For Allegedly Plotting A Harrowing String Of Attacks Against U.S. Military Facilities, Synagogues And Other Sites In Southern California As Part Of A Terrorist "War" By Islamic Extremists (Free La Times Reg Req)

Sheehan, War Protesters Leave Camp Near Bush Ranch

Census Bureau Report: Nearly One-Third Of Those Without Insurance Live In Households With An Annual Income Of $50,000 Or More

Ann Coulter: Ted Kennedy's Private Parts: Part 1

Jonah Goldberg: Pfizer Vs. Al Qaeda

Matthew Continetti: The War Among The Democrats

Walter Williams: Gasoline Prices

John Stossel: Half-Baked Science

Blogger Faces Lawsuit Over Comments Posted by Readers

Inventor Of Anti-Rape Device Prepares For Launch

Website Of The Day: Samaritan's Purse

My buddies over at Ankle Biting Pundits ran across what appeared to be quite a scoop from Cindy Sheehan.

In Cindy Sheehan's "Last Post From Crawford," she posted "thank-you's" to a number of politicians. Most of them were standard, run-of-the-mill, ultra-lefties. However, there was one name that really stood out...

"George Bush for not meeting with me on August 6th. Martin Sheen for his support and presence. A.I.M for Dennis Banks and Russell Means. Gary Hart, John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Jan Schakowsky, Dennis Kucinich, Frank Pallone, Lynn Woolsey, Chuck Hagel, Ralph Nader, Jim McDermott, Walter Jones, Charlie Rangel and the other politicos who either came to CC, or called me to offer their support and love."

So Chuck Hagel "either came to (Camp Casey) or called me to offer (his) support and love?"

This seemed to be plausible since Hagel had compared Iraq to Vietnam and said Bush should have met with Sheehan.

But still, something didn't smell right to me so I called Senator Hagel's office.

I talked to three people there and every single one of them unconditionally denied that Senator Hagel had ever been to Camp Casey or talked to Cindy Sheehan. So, I guess this is just another instance of Cindy Sheehan playing fast and loose with the truth.

That was the end of that, but since I was on the phone with Hagel's people, I thought I'd check on another rumor: that the Senator was considering an independent run at the presidency in 2008. Again, I was told that was not true.

So, we've had two rumors knocked out for the price of one...

Looting stores for any reason, for food, for water, for diapers, for baby food, is wrong and it should not be condoned. There are very good reasons for that:

-- Looting is theft of somebody's else's goods pure and simple. That's not OK even after a hurricane.
-- Usually, a window or door has to be kicked in to get to the food. So property is being damaged beyond what's being stolen.
-- If you look the other way on looting, you will only encourage more people to act that way. If it's OK to loot food during a hurricane, how many people are going to make the LOGICAL LEAP and say, "OK, why can't I just steal 'necessities' because I want it and don't have the money to pay for it?"
-- Looting also almost inevitably leads to violence.

But most importantly...

-- Even if people start with food, the crowd is not going to stop there. That's just human nature. Once someone walks out of Wal-Mart with a sack full of looted groceries, somebody else is going to go, "If he can get groceries, why can't I get a TV?"

Then after that, the next person is going to think, "If we can get away with looting Wal-Mart, we can get away with looting every store on this street." We can already see this happening in New Orleans where we even have scumbag looters trying to break into a Children's Hospital.

The people who are looting are criminals, period, and they're causing significant damage beyond that done by the hurricane. The police, military, and National Guard should be instructed to stop them by any means necessary including lethal force.

*** Update #1 ***: Hey look, we even have pro-looting liberals posting in the comments section here at RWN:

"If your slippery slope argument that they won't stop there is true, then you nail them when they don't stop there. Food is a different animal. And let's not forget about botled water! There's no clean water down there - so if you have to grab some from th local grocery store, that's what you need to do. You need to survive.

This is very good example of a point that takes the philosophy so fart hat it no longer makes sense. You start with very good ideas about protecting private property, but you take it way too far when you include food&water for starving people. You're so rigid in your philisophical position that you've let all application go. You're saying that people should starve or dehydrate in the parking lot of a grocery store. That's absurd." -- brs04wsc

Let me explain something: life is full of choices.

Take what happened in New Orleans, for example: People had plenty of forewarning that a monster hurricane was headed their way. They could have left town. They didn't. They could have gone to the Super Dome. They didn't. They could have prepared properly for the storm by stocking up on bottled water, food, and other necessities. They didn't.

So the storm hits and suddenly they realize -- duh -- we have no food, we have no water, and we're in trouble. So then, if instead of looking for help or trying to move to a place where they'll have easier access to help, they kick in a door and start stealing whatever they want. I have very little sympathy for them -- even if they're taking food, water, and baby food.

These people didn't prepare and if they turn to crime because of it, they deserve to be treated like exactly what they are: scumbag criminals.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour had it exactly right when he said:

"I have instructed the highway patrol and the National Guard to treat looters ruthlessly."

Spot-on Haley, spot-on!

Just to be clear: Am I saying the police should be forced to keep people out of grocery stores? Absolutely. Should people be prosecuted and sent to jail for looting whenever possible? Absolutely. Should the police, National Guard, and military be willing to gun people down to keep them from looting? Absolutely.

This is not downtown Baghdad after Saddam fell, it's not the Sudan, and it's not "Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome." This is the United States of America and we should not tolerate this ridiculous, lawless behavior in this country.

Just because I find this line of thinking to be surprisingly perverse, even for a bunch of liberals at the DU, here are more quotes from patrons of the Democratic Underground who've spoken out in favor of looting:

manic expression: 1.) Getting necessities, or very near necessities (as in having something to wipe their asses with). This is more than justified.

2.) Left out in the could by the rich and the government, and now they are taking what they need and what they want, something that is routinely denied to them on a regular basis.

If they take food, water, alcohol (a valuable medical asset, by the way), there is NO PROBLEM with that. If they take toilet paper, there is NO PROBLEM with that. Any person with half a heart will agree with me on those points.

However, if they take TV's, computers, shoes and the like, that is NOT unreasonable, as they are forced through lack of money and lack of other people's empathy to be subjected to the brutality of the storm, they are completely within their rights to take this opportunity to help themselves and their families. That is my opinion, and I believe that anyone with a sense of real justice will agree with me on those points.

Keep in mind that no one reached out a helping hand to those who could not leave before the storm, and then those who are subjected to it are expected to simply "take it", and leave the fortunate people's possessions alone? Please!

Try not to be judgmental of disaster-survivors while you sit in safety

William Bloode: If they are stealing food and water, do it without shame. If they are stealing a bit of alcohol, more power too them. After the hell they have been and are still going through they might need a drink. If they might take a few things other from the store thats o.k. with me too.

The poor and needy were abandoned to this hell, when those in charge should have done everything available to get them to safety. So do what it takes to make ya feel better, as long as it does not physically harm anyone else.

And for those who don't have a clue. Find a Red Cross, or whatever. I am quite sure in this mess they have no where near the supplies to fulfill needs. People should do what it takes to survive.

I know if it was me and i was in that situation of desperation and had to help my family. I would not have a problem with a bit of violence if thats what it took to provide.

Thtwudbeme: I seriously doubt one poster on DU personally knows any of the looters in the places hit by Katrina, or their reasons for looting.

I am sure there are SOME opportunistic people in these places who are taking big buck stuff...but, I am just as sure that most of the people are trying to get DINNER.

I hate that this storm has offended so many people's delicate sensibilities on DU.

Manners don't keep your stomach full, and morals and ethics don't taste all that great.

Stuff the looting posts; there are people dying right now.

Stephanie

Lex: I'd rather people take what they need in terms of first aid supplies and food and water, EVEN IF that means that some other people are taking TVs.

The good outweighs the bad in the long term, imho.

IanDB1: I suppose they could Buy Blue and Loot Red? I don't blame them. They were abandoned before the storm.

They were abandoned during the storm.

Why should they believe that they won't be abandoned AFTER the storm?

They'd be foolish to assume that they'll be given all the food and water they need, or that the government and insurance companies will put their lives back together.

And the bankruptcy courts sure won't help them.

Pacifist Patriot: You know. I really don't care if someone is helping himself to jeans. I don't condone senseless looting nor do I find it reasonable. But there is nothing reasonable about what is happening in that area. We can't expect normal people to behave rationally. I would suspect the "worst" of the looters take advantage of any possible situation, not just catastrophes.

As for "looting" grocery stores and drug stores for food, water, diapers, etc....I hope it helps these poor individuals survive. Last year when I stocked up for Frances and Jeanne I made sure I had plenty of bottled water, diapers and canned food. But what if I returned to find those supplies buried under twenty feet of water and no access to my money? I'd have fed and cared for my family any way I could and faced the consequences later.

Have mercy and compassion on those less fortunate than us. Yes, even the people helping themselves to soggy jeans and water-logged CD players. They are still in hell.

Sparkman: LOOT for survival....not a problem. Stealing to feed children's no crime. AND you can't carry on raising kids and living if you don't have STUFF. So count me a looter supporter, put me on the jury, INNOCENT your honor!!

The Democratic Underground Thread Of The Day: Pro-Looting Liberals Part 1

Because I'm so fair and balanced, I'd like to give you more perspective on the liberal view of hurricane Katrina.

I know that you may be surprised that there's "hurricane spin," but that seems like an apt description of "Put the N*ggers in the Superdome: Part II" by someone called "Flip Floss."

This post is not up on some little blog with 8 readers either. It's at the Daily Kos, the most popular liberal blog on the planet, and it's currently linked on the front page.

Here are some excerpts from "Put the N*ggers in the Superdome: Part II:"

"What I am going to say now is that there are thousands who are dying and dead. They will be scandal and rioting and rightly so in my opinion as the "Negroes" of New Orleans and tourists were left to drown. And that's what happened to a lot of people but the news media and the public is slow to announce and realize the obvious.

I am not going to apologize for being perceptive and reading between the lines. If you can't see that the poor people were herded into the unsafe Superdome because no one cares about them then that is not a problem I can address.

...Yes it is Bush's fault. He's on vacation again. And he put National Guard troops who could have saved American lives in Iraq so they could run around senselessly and be blown up. That war is over and has been over.

...I am very angry at what's happening in New Orleans. This event, I believe is only beginning to unfold not just in terms of the deaths but also of the social destruction of the Black population that is now being blamed for looting. I'd loot too! It's quite insane there is no food, water, electricity or housing. I would take whatever is available to survive and make myself comfortable and not worry about paying for it."

There you go, folks. Is it any wonder that the Daily Kos draws hundreds of thousands of liberals every day with that sort of sparkling analysis on display?

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for the story.

Make sure to check out my other blog, Conservative Grapevine, for some of the best stories from around the blogosphere like:

-- Rob's 80 year old grandfather tells a great Patton story
-- Rall savages Sheehan? That's a surprise
-- SGT. C was shot through the throat. "He was offered the opportunity to fly to Germany and probably then on to the US to recuperate by the medical staff. He turned it down."

Conservative Grapevine: it's the blog you should read after you finish with Right Wing News each day.

Brace yourselves, folks, because this IS NOT satire, although it may be a sign of a apocalypse:

"A secondary school is to allow pupils to swear at teachers - as long as they don't do so more than five times in a lesson. A running tally of how many times the f-word has been used will be kept on the board. If a class goes over the limit, they will be 'spoken' to at the end of the lesson.

The astonishing policy, which the school says will improve the behaviour of pupils, was condemned by parents' groups and MPs yesterday. They warned it would backfire.

Parents were advised of the plan, which comes into effect when term starts next week, in a letter from the Weavers School in Wellingborough, Northamptonshire.

Assistant headmaster Richard White said the policy was aimed at 15 and 16-year-olds in two classes which are considered troublesome.

"Within each lesson the teacher will initially tolerate (although not condone) the use of the f-word (or derivatives) five times and these will be tallied on the board so all students can see the running score," he wrote in the letter

"Over this number the class will be spoken to by the teacher at the end of the lesson."

...Headmaster Alan Large said he had received no complaints about the policy. "The reality is that the fword is part of these young adults' everyday language," he said.

"As a temporary policy we are giving them a bit of leeway, but want them to think about the way they talk and how they might do better."

Obviously something has gone horribly awry in this school. Is it possible that the teachers just aren't assertive enough to do their jobs? Could these kids be incorrigible punks who don't belong in a classroom? Is it just a case of political correctness gone mad?

Whatever the case may be, the very first thing they should do is replace the headmaster with someone competent because anyone who approves of letting high school students drop the f-bomb in class has no business working with kids. If you can't even enforce basic discipline, you certainly can't teach kids anything. That's not exactly rocket science...

Hundreds Feared Dead On Storm-Ravaged U.S. Coast

New Orleans Filling With Floodwaters Due To Breached Levee (Free Wapo Reg Req)

Katrina Damage May Bring $26b In Claims

Looting Takes Place In View Of La. Police (Don't They Issue Them Guns?)

Some Police Officers And Firefighters Join In Looting (They Deserve To Be Hung)

Official: Prisoners Riot, Take Hostages In New Orleans

Man Loses His Wife In Hurricane

German Papers: Katrina Should Be A Lesson To US On Global Warming

21 Terrorists Became U.S. Citizens

Cindy Sheehan To Protest Against Blue Angels Air Show In Maine

Sheehan Glad Bush Didn't Meet With Her

ABC News / WAPO Poll: Sheehan Has Changed Few Minds -- 10% Say She Made Them More Likely To Support The War -- 9% Said She Made Them Less Likely To Support The War -- 79% Said She Had No Effect

U.S. Warplanes Back Unprecedented Sunni-Led Offensive. Fierce Fighting In Growing Rift Between Zarqawi Insurgents And Sunni Arab Tribes (Free Wapo Reg Req)

Terrorists Disguised As Fishermen Bomb Ferry. Abu Sayyaf Said Responsible For Blast Injuring 30 In Philippines

A Roundup Of The Past Two Weeks' Good News From Iraq

Bush Appeals To Public Not To Waver In Iraq

Netanyahu Bids To Oust Sharon Over Gaza Pullout

Mark Goldblatt: The Best Of Cindy Sheehan

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Hawaiian-Nation Bound. Our 50th State Is Set To Become A Race-Based State

Thomas Sowell: Time And Money And Housing

Joe Mariani: Dear Iraq: We're Sorry For The Media

Jesse Helms Compares Abortion To The Holocaust And The Sept. 11 Attacks

Egypt Bloggers Spearhead Anti-Mubarak Dissent

A Suspected Burglar Was Charged With Felony Animal Cruelty After Police Found A Resident's Missing Dog Burned To Death In An Oven That Had Been Set To 400 Degrees

Website Of The Day: Donate To The Southern Baptist Disaster Relief To Help Victims Of Hurricane Katrina

Mark Tapscott wrote a generally sensible column about his frustration with Republicans in Washington who aren't sticking to conservative principles.

Unfortunately, Tapscott titled the column: "Is it time for conservatives to dump the GOP?"

Oh, oh, man does that title just grate on me.

"Is it time for conservatives to dump the GOP?"

Isn't that kind of like a bunch of astronauts up in space going: "Ya know, this space shuttle is uncomfortable, dangerous and cramped. What do you say we get out of this lousy shuttle and just jump out into space?

If you're a conservative or even a libertarian, how can you not be a Republican? Where else do you go? To some tiny little party that will be thrilled if they win a seat on a county commission in nowhereville, Montana? Nothing against people in the Libertarian, Reform, & Constitution Parties -- and I mean that, there are a lot of very sharp, very decent people in those little third parties -- but they're still wasting their time. None of those parties have amounted to a hill of beans and none of them ever will. Our political system has always been geared up for two parties and it likely always will be. If you don't support one of those two parties, the best you can ever hope for is to be a spoiler, to help draw enough votes away from the mainstream candidate who holds views that are similar to yours so that he loses. Is that really something to aspire to?

Anyway, back to Tapscott's column, which, as I said earlier is generally sensible (except for the title). Tapscott writes:

I’m not saying we should just up and bolt right now. What I am saying is this: The rebirth of limited government will remain a conservative pipedream as long as the people in charge of the GOP refuse to sober up.

Put another way, it’s time for an intervention.

...How would an intervention work on the political scene? I don’t have that answer. Some people suggest withholding campaign contributions. Others predict conservatives will stay at home in droves in the 2006 elections, possibly handing the Democrats a bunch of new seats in Congress and revived hopes of taking back the White House in 2008.

Perhaps such a turn of events would be the needed jolt, but it seems just as likely, given recent history, that only the names and party affiliations of those doing damage in Congress would change.

Got any suggestions?

There are a lot of things that can be done, but deliberately staying home in 2006 isn't one of them. Gee, having more Democrats in office: that's really going to make things better, isn't it? Personally, I'd suggest:

-- Raise a huge stink when Republicans in Washington do something you disagree with.
-- Support conservative candidates who can win against RINOS in the 2006 primaries.
-- Support "structural" changes that will lead to better government like a Balanced Budget Amendment, term limits, and anything that reduces gerrymandering.
-- Vote Republican, but don't donate to candidates whom you don't like and feel free to let them know why when they send you a fund raising letter.
-- Alternately, you could increase your level of support for the GOP. Give us a Republican President, 60 Republican Senators, and a GOP majority in the House and on the Supreme Court -- which is doable by the way -- and the GOP is theoretically capable of pushing through our whole agenda without the Democrats being able to do much to stop us.

In any case, the most important thing conservatives can do is convince people that we're right. Our representatives in Washington may be a little slow on the uptake, but they eventually get the message -- that is, if they're hearing it from enough people.

My personal theory is that if you can convince 60% of America you're right, then you will eventually get your way. So either you convince people that your position is right or help people that can do it for you. In the end, that's the most important thing we can do to help get a conservative agenda enacted. Once enough people agree, the politicians will fall into place.

derby378: Hurricane Katrina proves that Bush must be IMPEACHED, and NOW.

Just watch the FReepers howl: "Do the DUmmies think Bush can prevent hurricanes? Will they claim he LIHOP'ed Katrina like they claim he LIHOP'ed 9/11?"

No President can prevent a hurricane, but a competent President can prepare for the inevitable so that, when a natural disaster occurs, he can direct government relief agencies to respond accordingly. George W. Bush has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is unfit to sit in the Oval Office.

Because he is so obsessed with plundering Iraq on the behalf of Halliburton, Monsanto, and all the rest, the National Guardsmen who would have been on hand to help their fellow Louisianians are located half a globe away. So is their high-water equipment, which would be better served in the streets of New Orleans than in the damaged marshes of southern Iraq.

Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi are hurting. Badly. And where is Bush now that the red states need him?

See? Thought so. Impeach this Coca-Cola cowboy now.

1) Some people are saying that Iraq's Constitution will lead to a theocracy. Is that true? Religion does play a more substantial role in Iraq's Constitution than it does in our Constitution here in the United States. However, not only does the Iraqi Constitution not create a theocracy, it has numerous clauses that guarantee the religious rights & freedoms of all Iraqis. For example:

Article (2): (b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.

2nd -- This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and the full religious rights for all individuals and the freedom of creed and religious practices like (Christians, Yazidis, Sabaean Mandeans.)

Article (14): Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of sex, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status.

Article (41): 1st -- The followers of every religion and sect are free in:

(a) the practice of their religious rites, including the Husseiniya Rites (Editors Note: these are Shiite rites.) (b) the administration of religious endowments and their affairs and their religious institutions, and this will be organized by law.

2nd -- The state guarantees freedom of worship and the protection of its places.

The Constitution also condemns terrorism, guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and property rights. It may not be a perfect document, but in many ways it's better than many people may have expected.

2) Well, if it's a pretty good Constitution, why aren't the Sunnis on board? The chief complaint the Sunnis negotiators have had is over Federalism. They fear that Federalism could be a prelude to the country breaking up. If that were to happen, the Sunnis would be left in the lurch because the oil is in regions largely inhabited by Shias and Kurds.

3) So, since the Sunnis oppose the Constitution, does that mean it will be voted down in October? In October, there will be a referendum on the Constitution and if 2/3rds of the voters in 3 or more of Iraq's 18 provinces vote against the Constitution, it will be rejected. Sunnis hold a majority in 3 or 4 provinces, depending on who you believe.

Does that mean all those provinces will reject the Constitution? Not necessarily.

To begin with, as U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has pointed out -- Sunnis may not feel free to openly speak out in favor of the Constitution because of terrorist threats:

"You heard some (Sunnis) say that they like the document, but if they openly support it, their lives could be at risk"

That means the public opposition to the Constitution we're hearing from the Sunnis right now may be overstated and the support for the document may be significantly understated.

Moreover, we must keep in mind that even though Sunnis may make up a majority in 3-4 provinces, not all of them will vote against the Constitution. When you also consider that any Kurds and Shias in those provinces are expected to vote overwhelmingly for the Constitution, it may be difficult to get 67% of a province to vote "nay."

Furthermore, it's possible that the Sunni negotiators don't necessarily represent the views of the Sunni population that well. For example, a poll of Iraqis done by a NGO called "The Civil Alliance For Free Elections" "showed that 78% of participants support a federal state while 22% preferred a state based on a strong central government." That means Federalism, which is supposed to be a big sticking point for Sunnis, may actually be a selling point.

On the other hand, since Sunnis didn't heavily participate in the January elections, but are registering to vote in great numbers today, it may be possible that they will want the Constitution to be scrapped because they believe they'll have more input into a 2nd version.

The long and short of it is that it's very hard to say whether the Iraqi Constitution will be approved in October at this point.

4) What happens if the Constitution is rejected by the Iraqi people in October? Basically, they start the process all over again:

"The National Assembly will be dissolved, and elections for a second transitional National Assembly will be held by December 15. The new assembly will appoint a new transitional prime minister and government, and the drafting process will start again. A second constitutional draft must be completed by August 15, 2006, after which another referendum will be held. If the new draft is ratified, a permanent government will be seated by the end of 2006. The TAL is silent on what happens if the second draft fails."

5) Would it be a significant setback for the US if the Constitution were rejected by the Iraqis? Yes, it would be a significant setback since we're hoping that getting more Iraqis involved in the political process and the elections currently scheduled for Dec 15 of this year will help reduce frustration and violence in the country.

On the other hand, it wouldn't be the end of the world if the Constitution were rejected. As long as the US can continue to keep moving forward in training the Iraqis to police their own country, there's no reason why we can't keep progressing towards victory.

6) What is "victory" in Iraq?: Replacing Saddam Hussein with a democratic government that is capable of handling its own internal security.

7) Do US forces have to destroy the insurgency to win? No. As we've seen in Israel, India, Spain, Britain, and many other countries, terrorism alone isn't enough to topple a Democratic government and allow the terrorists to take over. At some point, the terrorists would need an army capable of taking and holding territory. That's a problem for the terrorists because even if they were able to concentrate their forces in order to take cities, they couldn't hold their gains. After Fallujah and the crushing of Muqtada al-Sadr's uprising, that has been proven.

And given: "that the U.S. expects to have 275,000 Iraqi policemen and soldiers trained and equipped and organized into effective units" by June 2006, things are only going to be getting more difficult for the terrorists in the future.

8) Well, why aren't all these troops trained already? What's the hold up? Keep in mind that Iraq's army under Saddam Hussein was dominated from top to bottom by Sunni loyalists. Because of that, the army had to be disbanded in order to make sure that they wouldn't end up being a threat to the government (although some members of the army have been vetted and brought back into the fold).

So essentially, we started almost from scratch, training ordinary Iraqis with little experience for police and military jobs. Add to that the difficulties of our different cultures, the troubling and violent conditions, and the fact that we had to train the officers as well, and it has been slow going.

But just because it has been "slow going" doesn't mean that there hasn't been enormous progress. As Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus pointed out earlier this month:

"...more than 110 Iraqi police and army combat battalions are "in the fight" -- a total of 178,000 trained and equipped forces -- a vast increase since a U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein.

Pentagon officials, quoted in an August news article on the Defense Department Web site, said "this time last year, only one battalion was trained and equipped well enough to assist coalition forces."

9) Ok, so the Iraqis are making progress. What does that mean for our troops? When can they start to come home?

The President has refused to set a timetable for a pull out because he believes it would give the insurgents an "incentive 'to wait us out.'" Instead Bush has said that as: ""Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

Although the President is keeping his lips buttoned, some of our generals have been a bit more forthcoming about our plans.

Gen. George W. Casey has said that there may be: "some "fairly substantial reductions" after these elections in the spring and summer.

Furthermore, the Washington Post noted in late July that Lt. Gen. John R. Vines: "told reporters last month that four or five of 17 battalions, roughly one-quarter of U.S. forces in Iraq, could be pulled out if security conditions improved and if Iraqi national elections scheduled for December went smoothly."

Similarly in July, Gen. John Abizaid: "outlined a plan last month to gradually reduce by 20,000 to 30,000 by next spring the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, with more to follow in the summer and fall."

So, it looks likely that we will see substantial troop reductions in Iraq between Jan & June of 2006, although we may actually see a temporary increase in the number of troops in Iraq over the next few months in order to provide extra security for the Iraqi elections.

10) That sounds good in theory, but can our military hold up under the pressure? Are we wrecking the military by keeping them in Iraq under the current circumstances? First of all, there is no such thing as "light casualties" to a family that has had a loved one injured in combat. So make no mistake about it, what we're doing in Iraq has been hard on our soldiers and on their families and friends.

That being said, as Sgt. Joe Roche of the 12th Aviation Battalion explains, we shouldn't lose our perspective:

"The fact is that we are not experiencing casualty rates anywhere near past conflicts, nor for that matter as bad as during peacetime. There were weeks in Vietnam when 350-400 Americans died, and in other wars thousands would die in single battles. Nothing like that is happening now.

From 1983 to 1996, more than 18,000 soldiers died. That averages to more than 1,300 a year, far more than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan each year. Yes, that was mostly from accidents, drunk driving and other mishaps. Yet, while protesters in Crawford, Texas and elsewhere would have you think that our military can't survive with the low casualty rates of this war, I wonder why they were willing to accept the much higher peacetime casualty rates of the past? We lost around 3,000 innocent people on September 11, and with four years of war and the toppling of two regimes, we haven't lost that many in combat."

Furthermore, as the Boston Globe reported, when you look at new enlistments AND re-enlistments combined, the military is still keeping up the necessary amount of manpower:

"Recruits in July totaled 109 percent of the Army's goal, the second straight month above target. In aggregate, the four services were 4 percent over (the Navy fell 1 percent short). The Pentagon says the Army will still fall short for the fiscal year, and reserve components are still not signing up enough new members (though re-upping targets are being met by the National Guard units of the Army and Air Force). Still, the enlistments ought to prove that America's young men and women still believe in their country and its difficult mission in Iraq, despite all that Cindy Sheehan and her band of like-minded demonstrators can do. The New York Post dug a little deeper than the bare-bones announcement. Every one of the Army's 10 combat divisions has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the fiscal year so far. The 1st Cavalry Division was at 136 percent; the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent. As author Ralph Peters noted, ``This is unprecedented in wartime.''"

The fact that our troops are choosing to re-enlist in significantly higher than expected numbers, even though many of them know they'll be going back to Iraq, should tell us quite a bit about the morale of our troops and whether they believe this fight is worthwhile.

So, I'm headed over to the Democratic Underground to look for threads blaming George Bush for hurricane Katrina. I know that might sound a bit odd, but lefties have blamed Bush for absolutely everything under the sun at one time or another, so why should Hurricane Katrina be any different?

But, when I arrived at the DU, I ran across a trend that was so weirdly noteworthy that I had to spend a little time on it. What's the trend you ask? Get ready for this: Pro-looting liberals.

Granted, there were plenty of people at the DU who didn't support looting, but -- believe it or not -- there was a surprisingly large number of people who seemed to have no problem whatsoever with looters.

Some of them justified their position by saying that we're talking about starving people looting for food, but given that everyone knew the hurricane was coming and it just hit yesterday, it's pretty hard to argue "famine" at this point.

Here are just some of the comments from the DU (I could have literally posted 4 or 5 times this number with minimal effort):

From a thread called: Looters

undergroundpanther: The fact the national guard is keeping people from FOOD shows we are NOT living in a democracy,the Rich people's THINGS must be protected from starving people!!Remember the french revolution,the rich make sure the lower class suffers and is desperate,the middle class is scared of poor people,the soldiers are bribed obedient and loyal,. That is how they say rich and on our backs.

F*ck all the corporate pigs. F*cking *ssholes! Disaster shows us the true use of our military is to PROTECT PROPERTY of corporations above human life, to keep the rich secure people DIE.

I say Eat the rich people if they will not let you get food. Roast them on a spit and share the bounty.They have been fed on the finest organic foods.*sarcasm*

D*mn I am pissed. Let the people EAT..What happened soldier to defending life? Life comes before property IF you are not a sociopath scum bag. Don't obey wealthy scumbags posing as"leaders".Sheesh.

From a thread called What is your opinion about looters?:

HypnoToad: I think authorities or those who control the food should be civil enough to share it properly in the first d*mn place.

If they don't, then I cannot have a moral grudge against those who loot the food. But as we're not as much a society but a dog-eat-dog everyone-for-himself joke...

JI7: people are trying to survive and considering all that is happening now. even if there were a few people stealing luxury items it would be far down on the list of what is important right now.

wli: they're using "looting" as an excuse to gun down poor people n/t

Sentinel Chicken: While technically it's stealing in reality ...a lot of the merchandise would be thrown out anyway. Food is perishable and would not be salable and the consumer goods would most likely not be sold but claimed as a loss on the merchants insurance. So I have no big problem with people who have suffered a terrible loss grabbing whatever they need to live on and if they pick up a few luxuries along the way it's small potato's.

genevat: if i were in the shoes of the people in n.o., i would be stealing food. i am probably poor, black (from the photos i saw), and have now lost everything. there is probably not going to be any food coming into the city anytime soon. what is there is going to rot anyway, so what the hell? it is a matter of survival at this point.

looting luxury items - well, i think that is human nature. it's going to happpen. i doubt i would be tempted, but then again, if i didn't do it, someone else would.

it's a what-if type of question. hard to know what i'd do in that situation.

ultraist: Looters like Bush and his cronies should face life in prison. And for those that engage in petty theft looting during a natural disaster, should be granted the consideration of extenuating circumstances.

Make sure to check out PunditGuy who found other examples of this same phenomenon at DU.

Scalia spoke to students at Chapman University and he sure didn't hold back on what he thought about having the courts decide matters better left to elected legislators.

Speaking before a packed auditorium, Scalia said he was saddened to see the U.S. Supreme Court deciding moral issues not addressed in the Constitution, such as abortion, assisted suicide, gay rights and the death penalty. He said such questions should be settled by Congress or state legislatures beholden to the people.

"I am questioning the propriety — indeed, the sanity — of having a value-laden decision such as this made for the entire society ... by unelected judges," Scalia said.

"Surely it is obvious that nothing I learned during my courses at Harvard Law School or in my practice of law qualifies me to decide whether there ought to be, and therefore is, a fundamental right to abortion or assisted suicide," he said.

Scalia also railed against the principle of the "living Constitution," saying it has led the U.S. Senate to try to appoint so-called politically "moderate" judges instead of focusing on professional credentials and ability.

"Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?" he said, to laughter and applause.

This is how I know that I just can't see eye to eye with someone of the other views. I'm all for representative government even when our representatives are frustrating, self-centered, and downright dumb. As Churchill said, it's the worst form of government there is except for all the others. And I want to see these decisions made in legislatures where the people can vote out those they disagree with and change their minds and adapt laws to their local circumstances.

There are some things that are fundamental rights and that is why we have a Bill of Rights and an amendment procedure. If assisted suicide is a fundamental right, pass a law. And if you're afraid that future legislators would change it, pass an amendment. That's hard to do. You have to persuade a whole lot Americans that they should agree with you, not just five justices. And that's the way it should be.

As the Astute Blogger said yesterday, would people be so willing to believe in a "living Constitution" if all the courts had conservative judges? Wouldn't they then be all in favor of having decisions set in concrete so that those conservative judges couldn't interpret a living, breathing constitution in their own lights? Leave these decisions to the branches of government that are closest to the people.

This material was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.

Katrina Floods Gulf States, Killing 55

"The City Of New Orleans Is In A State Of Devastation. We Probably Have 80 Percent Of Our City Underwater. With Some Sections Of Our City, The Water Is As Deep As 20 Feet"

Insurers Estimate Damage At $9 Billion, Among Costliest U.S. Storms On Record (Free NYT Reg Req)

Gov. Bush Warns Residents Of Hurricane Katrina Related Gas Shortages

Sharpton's Car Evades Police for 9 Miles

Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) Plans To Announce Tuesday That He Will Not Challenge Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) Next Year (Free Wapo Reg Req)

Pennsylvania: Illegal Alien Murders Three

Iraqis Finish Draft Charter That Sunnis Vow to Defeat (Free WAPO Reg Req)

The Final Draft Of The Iraqi Constitution (Free NYT Reg Req)

Russia's Foreign Ministry Regrets U.S. Senators' Plane Delay

Scientist: Brazil Nearly Built Atom Bomb In 1990

A Lawyer Trying To Collect A $116 Million Terrorism Judgment Against The Palestinian Authority Has Obtained A Court-Ordered Freeze On All Its US-Based Assets

Rumsfeld: U.S. Won't Lose In Iraq

An Iraqi Army Unit Ready To Control Its Turf

John Fund: America Is A Laggard In The Tax-Reform Revolution

James K. Glassman: Raising CAFE Standards Won't Save Fuel

Lorie Byrd: It's Time To Set The Record Straight

Sher Zieve: NAACP To Fight For Democrat Dead Vote?

Iraqi Reality TV Show Could be Called 'This Bombed House'

Should Men Want To Watch Their Wives Give Birth?

Gillian Anderson: "There Is No Freedom Of Speech In America Anymore. They Are Not Living Up To The Constitution. There's So Much Fear In America And Control."

Website Of The Day: News Unfiltered

"I root for hurricanes. When, courtesy of the Weather Channel, I see one forming in the ocean off the coast of Africa, I find myself longing for it to become big and strong--Mother Nature's fist of fury, Gaia's stern rebuke. Considering the havoc mankind has wreaked upon nature with deforesting, stripmining, and the destruction of animal habitat, it only seems fair that nature get some of its own back and teach us that there are forces greater than our own." -- James Wolcott, Vanity Fair Contributing Editor

On days like today, it's easy to see why that moronic quotation from lefty snark king, James Wolcott, was the third most obnoxious quote of 2004.

This piece from Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics was so spot-on that I had to post a big chunk of it. Go read it all when you're done....

"...(I)f you take some of the arguments (of the anti-war left) (which spans the "netroots" crowd at Daily Kos all the way to the New York Times op-ed page) has marshalled against President Bush and recast them in generic terms, you'll see they read like a list of "out clauses" tucked inside a "We Support the Use of U.S. Military Force" contract:

The Chickenhawk Clause: No administration official may be involved in planning or supporting a war effort unless they have served in the military. (This clause applies to members of the public as well).

The Shared Sacrifice Clause: Wars may not be conducted unless a vast majority of the public share in some sort of common sacrifice which will most likely take the form of increasing the tax burden on the public.

The Elite Sacrifice Clause: Wars may not be conducted unless 1) all military age children among the highest ranking civilian and military officials in the country are forced to serve and 2) a certain (but as yet undefined) percentage of combat deaths must come from soldiers with "privileged" backgrounds.

The Grieving Parent Clause: Mothers and fathers of soldiers killed in action are given "absolute" moral authority. Therefore wars may be fought only until the mother or father of a soldier killed in action objects to either the policy or the leadership of the administration.

The Presidential Vacation Clause: During the course of any conflict where U.S. soldiers are in harm's way, presidents are not allowed to take vacation but instead must remain at the White House "burning the midnight oil" to demonstrate military personnel are a priority.

The War Profiteering Clause: The Pentagon is allowed to hire private contractors to assist in military logistics and reconstruction projects provided that 1) no member of the administration has ever had any contact with the company and 2) the company is not allowed to make a profit.

Of course, one of the primary requirements for the left to support U.S. military force is winning the approval of the UN Security Council. Taken together these requirements would seem to make it almost impossible for the left to support U.S. military action under any circumstance."

Cindy Sheehan, the "Rosa Parks" of the anti-war movement, continued to make an idiot of herself over the week-end.

Now, since a lot of people are sick of her, it might be tempting to ignore her idiocy. However, since she's a beloved woman in the anti-war movement, a woman who could fairly be said to speak for the anti-war left, we should at least pay a little attention to what she has to say.

For example, here's an under reported quote from this "lovely" woman:

"The person who killed my son, I have no animosity for that person at all."

So she has "no animosity" towards the terrorist who murdered her son? Oh... I forgot, Cindy Sheehan sees terrorists as "freedom fighters." So the car bombers, suicide bombers, and serial decapitators are the "good guys" to her -- and presumably, all the other folks in the anti-war movement who see her as a leader. Gee, isn't it kind of hard to claim you "support the troops" when you think they're the bad guys in a fight?

Anyway, on to mothers who've lost sons and daughters in Iraq and yet have the terrible audacity to disagree with Cindy Sheehan:

"How can anyone, anyone in their right minds support this line of reasoning? I have been silent on the Gold Star Moms who still support this man and his war by saying that they deserve the right to their opinions because they are in as much pain as I am. I would challenge them, though, at this point to start thinking for themselves. Iraq DID NOT have WMD; Iraq WAS NOT linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11; Iraq WAS NOT a threat or danger to America. How can these moms who still support George Bush and his insane war in Iraq want more innocent blood shed just because their sons or daughters have been killed? I don't understand it. I don't understand how any mother could want another mother to feel the pain we feel. I am starting to lose a little compassion for them. I know they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America, but they know the pain and heartache and they should not wish it on another. However, I still feel their pain so acutely and pray for these "continue the murder and mayhem" moms to see the light."

Aww, isn't that sweet? Not only does Saint Cindy "feel their pain," she is going to pray for those poor "brainwashed" moms who are out of their "right minds" to "see the light."

What compassion.

I bet Saint Cindy and her benevolent followers even have sympathy for the parents who keep pulling up crosses bearing the names of their children that Cindy and Company like to use as props:

"Gregg Garvey's son, Army Sgt. Justin Garvey, 23, was killed in Iraq in July 2003. On Tuesday, Mr. Garvey of Keystone Heights, Fla., removed two crosses bearing the name of his son that were posted at the Sheehan demonstration site -- dubbed "Camp Casey" -- outside the Bush ranch.

"I also picked up crosses of two colleagues [of his son], after their parents gave me permission to remove their crosses as well," Mr. Garvey said yesterday.

The crosses were erected by a group called Veterans for Peace as part of Mrs. Sheehan's protest that began Aug. 6.

"One by one, [Mrs. Sheehan's] crosses are coming down," said Mr. Qualls, whose son, Louis Qualls, 20, was a Marine reservist killed in Fallujah last fall.

Mr. Qualls, an Army veteran from Penwell, Texas, said he has removed three different crosses bearing his son's name from the nearly 600 erected on the narrow road leading to Mr. Bush's ranch. Each time he removed a cross, protesters replaced it, he said."

Don't these selfish bereaved parents understand that those crosses help Cindy get media exposure?

You can't expect Cindy to just exploit the death of her own son when there are so many other dead soldiers she can use to get attention. Why, if it weren't for all those crosses, you think Al Sharpton would be hanging around for photo-ops?:

Cindy Sheehan and her little catered "grief circus" is getting more and more grotesque by the day and, personally, I look forward to the time when Saint Cindy's 15 minutes of fame are up for good.

Hat tip to Yahoo for the photo.

I'm not an expert on hurricanes and I'm in the middle of a big article I'm working on for tomorrow, so I'm not going to live blog the hurricane. But, this is a big story and I wanted to give you some other sources that are all over what's happening:

Blogsnow
Drudge Report
Instapundit
Michelle Malkin
National Hurricane Coverage
Storm Digest Blog
Weather.com
Weatherblog

PS: The Fox guys are out in the middle of this hurricane getting footage and it's just nuts. One of them almost got pegged by a piece of roof just now....

"Yes, a brutal insurgency continues to threaten the Iraqi people, an insurgency which has killed some 25,000 Iraqi civilians since April of 2003. But Saddam Hussein, even by conservative estimates, butchered 1.5 million Iraqis during his 25 years in power (not counting the one million who died in the war he started with Iran). So Saddam and his goons killed an average of 60,000 people a year, while the insurgency has killed 25,000 in two and a half years. Despite the hand-wringing over the insurgency, the devil's arithmetic would indicate that life for the average Iraq is actually safer today than it was under Saddam." -- Jim Forsyth

In my opinion, here are the top 10 Civil War generals in order. Agree? Disagree? Feel free to discuss in the comments section...

1) US Grant (N)
2) Robert E. Lee (S)
3) William Tecumseh Sherman (N)
4) Stonewall Jackson (S)
5) Nathan Bedford Forrest (S)
6) Phil Sheridan (N)
7) George Meade (N)
8) Jeb Stuart (S)
9) Joe Johnston (S)
10) Winfield Scott Hancock (N)

"Iraq is just like Vietnam except: We occupy Hanoi. We've captured Ho Chi Minh. The North Vietnamese have just held a free and democratic election. The North Vietnamese are working on a new constitution. Yes, Iraq is just like Vietnam." -- Art Fougner

Sunni Negotiators Refuse To Endorse Constitution

Israel: A Suicide Bombing Has Injured At Least 10 People At A Crowded Bus Station

Bush Calls For Patience On Iraq Mission

Germany: Gerhard Schroeder Down By 12-14 Points With Time Running Out In Election

New Orleans Evacuated As Hurricane Katrina Heads Their Way

US Heading For House Price Crash, Greenspan Tells Buyers

Oil Leaps Above $70 As Katrina Rips Through US Gulf

Cindy Sheehan: Sheehan: Other Moms Of Slain 'Brainwashed'. Cindy Labels Them Supporters Of 'Murder And Mayhem'

Hillary Would Beat Condi 44% To 38%. 28% Say They Would Definitely Vote For Hillary As President. 39% Said They Definitely Would Not

John Mccain To Chuck Hagel: Iraq Not Vietnam

Charlie Rangel: "Sometimes I Don't Even Think Cheney Is Awake Enough To Know What's Going On. Rumsfeld Is The Guy In Washington...Running The Country."

Victor Davis Hanson: Iraq -- Where Socialists And Anarchists Join In With Racialists And Paleocons

Tony Blair: My Fight Against Terror. Britian's PM Explains His Crackdown On Muslim Extremists

Mark Steyn: The Iraqi Constitution Has Something For Everyone

Dave Kopel: Sheehan's Radical Views Little Noted

Cifford May: Dear Cindy; An Open Letter To The Mother Of A Fallen Hero

Rap Mogul 'Suge' Knight Shot At Miami Beach Party

Fred Phelps And His Squad Of Loonies Are Still Protesting GI Funerals

Russian Mother Attempts To Kill Baby In Washing Machine

Website Of The Day: National Ledger