Cake Eater Chronicles

Donate To The Humane Society For Katrina Animal Rescue

FEMA's Response Time After Hurricane Floyd In 1999: Nearly A Month

Discovery Channel: The Flight That Fought Back -- A Movie Premiering On 9/11

The Marine Corps: Reports Of Qaim Capture By Al-Qaeda Are False

Relapsed Catholic

Single Malt Pundit

This Blog Is Full Of Crap

Vodkapundit

Writewing

Question: "Who will be the Rep nom in 08, and will they be to theh right or left of Bush?" -- D-Vega

Answer: It's too early to know whom the nominee will be. However, assuming the GOP doesn't bomb out in 2006 (and I don't think we will), I expect a nominee more conservative than Bush.

The reasons for that are twofold.

#1) Politically, if you're smart, you move to the middle when you're losing, not when you're winning, and the GOP is on a big national winning streak. Why should the winners (The GOP) go with a candidate who's even more like the losers (The Democrats) in a national election?

#2) The base will be looking for a candidate whom they perceive as being strong in the same areas where Bush is strong (foreign policy, taxes, abortion, a pro-marriage amendment) & they're also going to want a candidate who looks strong in his weak spots (deficit reduction as well as illegal immigration/border control).

Keep in mind that liberals may think George Bush is this ultra-conservative President, but the truth is that he's probably a little more conservative than his dad, but far less conservative than Reagan. My guess is that in 2008 we'll end up with a candidate somewhere between W. & Reagan on the conservatism scale.

Question: "Seriously, John, I think you may be going off the deep end. You're very, very bright and have great ideas. Please go back to putting forth your views with your logical arguments and style...and stop giving airtime to the DU nitwits. Thanks for considering this!

I have to third(?) this we see loons here and hear the same memes from our resident trolls. I prefer it when you post your editorials instead of wacky people. I don't like the way it makes me feel about my fellow American(t)s.

Maybe if you post DU/KOS updates in your ACPOTI and put that in your news section so if people want to see LLL, they still can." -- simulacre

Answer: I get this complaint ever so often, so it's worth answering.

First of all, you have to understand the nature of the Democratic Underground. When the lefties over there think they're doing well or nothing much is going on, they can hold it together. But, when a big event happens or when they're hit with what they perceive as a political setback, they go crackers.

So, what ends up happening is you'll see 1-2 DU related posts on RWN over a month's time and then suddenly something will happen and there will be 5 of them in two weeks time. Even if you don't care for those threads, don't worry too much, because the moonbats will eventually get all tuckered out and start laying low in the fever swamps again.

As to why I love covering loony libs in general (not just at DU), there are three reasons worth mentioning:

#1) The MSM might put any dumb thing Pat Robertson says on the front page, but they have a tendency to bury embarrassing things said by liberals (If you want a perfect example of that, see Cindy Sheehan). So, by covering these things, I'm filling a niche the MSM generally ignores.

#2) Although I do occasionally get some complaints, these wacko threads are popular and they tend to draw more traffic than the average post.

#3) Understand that I don't link these people because I think they're on the fringes, I link them because I think they're a whole lot more representative of modern liberal thought than most people realize.

Consider that Michael Moore was a "political rock star" in 2004, Ted Rall has done cartoons for Time, The NY Times, & the LA Times, Cindy Sheehan got fawning media coverage, Howard "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for" is DNC Chairman, the Democratic Underground was linked by John Kerry's campaign blog last year, and the Daily Kos is the biggest political blog on the planet.

These are not people and websites on the "fringes" of the Democratic Party. To the contrary, not only are they in the mainstream, they're very popular and many of their views are held by large numbers of liberals in this country, maybe even a majority.

That's why I think people should be informed about what these people believe and what they say because, mark my words, if Hillary Clinton ends up in the White House in 2008, you're going to end up with people who think just like Cindy Sheehan working the DOD. You're going to have Michael Moore types high up in the State Department. You're going to have people like Kos or some of the loonier types at the Democratic Underground making decisions about law enforcement, taxes, judges, and everything else.

If people are going to vote for Democrats for President or Congress, so be it, but I intend to do my part to make sure that they get a real long look at the seamy underbelly of the party they're putting in power.

Question: "What mistakes, if any, do you think the right made during the failed nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987, and what should they do differently this time in the event of another highly controversial nominee?" -- maledicta

Answer: If you ask me, Bork was "Borked" for 3 reasons.

1) The Democrats did hit Bork early and often as an extremist & the GOP was slow to respond. Plus, that trick was newer back then. At this point, the Democrats have "cried wolf" about extremism so many times that the public now just writes it off as partisan wrangling.

2) Bork had a gruff manner and a "weird beard" that was off-putting to the public.

3) Most importantly by far, the Democrats had a 55-45 majority when Bork was rejected and Bork ended up losing 58-42.

What lessons can we learn from Bork? Here's the most important one:

With a 55-45 majority in the Senate, Bush can slam anybody he wants down the Democrats throat and there's not a thing in the world they can do about it other than organize a filibuster that would likely lead to the nuclear option.

That's one of the reasons I hated the "gang-of-14" compromise so much. Had the Republicans in the Senate pulled the trigger on the nuclear option, anybody Bush picked would be a forgone conclusion to make it on the Supreme Court unless they pulled another "Bernard Kerik" with the vetting.

In any case, I think as long as Bush selects a nominee acceptable to the base, he's in a very strong position and should be able to get any judge he wants confirmed without having to worry about political fall-out.

PS: I'm a huge Bork fan and I can only imagine how differently things would have turned out on the Supreme Court had Bork ended up there instead of his eventual replacement, Anthony Kennedy.

Just take a look at my dog Patton...

Do you know how I pay for the toys he plays with? The ads below. Do you know what makes the advertisers happy? Getting clicks on their websites.

So...if you click on the websites below, you are in effect helping make a better life for a photogenic animal. So come on, click on a few ads -- do it for the cute little doggie!

Book: Hollywood Nation
Conservative Grapevine
Freedom Stone T-Shirts
Jack Lewis
Matt Furey Combat Conditioning
Mercy Corps
MyPublicInfo
Place A Bet On Iraq
RighTalk
RightWingStuff
The Silver Lake Personal Security Collection Series
Stop The ACLU

Question: "Who do you think would be a good potential nominee for President Bush to pick as a justice to the Supreme Court?" -- sproe98

Answer: There are a lot of great candidates out there and I mentioned some of them earlier this week.

However, I've been thinking about it and have decided that Janice Rogers Brown would be a particularly DELICIOUS pick.

First of all, she's a rock solid originalist who's really popular with the conservative base. Plus, the liberal base would be furious with the Democratic members of the "gang of 14" who helped the pave the way for nomination by compromising with the GOP. That could even do enough damage to some of those Democratic Senators to help the GOP take their seats in 2006.

Second of all, just imagine how embarrassing it would be for the Democrats to launch all these nasty & vitriolic attacks at the first black woman ever nominated for the Supreme Court, a sharecropper's daughter, right after they accused the Republicans of being racist in their response to hurricane Katrina.

Third, Bush could go ahead, nominate Brown next week, and portray her as a "compromise pick." After all, the Democrats have no excuse for delay since Brown was just confirmed to the appeals court 56-43 back in June. She was also part of the "gang of 14" compromise so a filibuster would look incredibly hypocritical. Even the always unreliable RINOS would have a hard time turning around and voting against her after they just voted in her favor.

Like I said, DELICIOUS!

Question: "Considering how loathe the SCOTUS is to overturn itself, how likely is it that Roe v. Wade will actually be overturned even with Bush's new nominees?" -- mightysamurai

Answer: Scalia, Thomas, & hopefully Roberts and Pick #2 would still only add up to 4 votes against Roe v. Wade. In order to overturn Roe v. Wade, Bush would need to replace at least one more liberal judge.

Will Bush get the opportunity? You never really know, but there have been rumors floating around about Stevens, Ginsberg, and Souter bowing out. If he were able to replace any of those judges (or Breyer or Kennedy), it's entirely possible that it could mean the end of Roe v. Wade. If Bush were able to replace 2 of the liberal judges -- which isn't out of the question -- Roe v. Wade would be as good as gone.

Now, is it possible that you could have a conservative judge who thinks Roe v. Wade is bad constitutional law, but who'll still be reluctant to overturn it once he gets on the Supreme Court? Yes, but the overwhelming majority of conservatives including Thomas & Scalia don't consider Roe v. Wade to be "settled law." So to me, it seems unlikely that anyone Bush appoints would end up "splitting the baby" in that manner.

Question: "Do you think climate change poses a significant long term threat to the United States?" -- Uowe10000inBushdebt

Answer: To me, there are two very important things to keep in mind about global warming:

#1) Despite the fact that a lot of people talk very authoritatively about global warming, what the temperature is going to be like in 50 years, etc., when it comes to the global climate, our knowledge level is actually very minimal.

So when you start asking basic questions like, "Is mankind causing global warming or is it just part of the normal heating and cooling cycle of the earth," or "Will the earth still be warming 50 years from now or will the temperature have leveled off or started cooling," I don't believe anyone who says we definitively know the answers to those questions.

Until we better understand the global climate, I think it's pointless to get all up in arms about a problem we may or may not run into 50-100 years in the future, when we have so many other issues to deal with right now.

#2) Let's say you solve problem #1 and determine that global warming is coming, it will be very damaging, and that it is caused by human beings. Even if that were the case, nobody has yet offered any sort of practical solution to deal with the problem.

Even the environmentalists who championed the Kyoto Protocol now admit that it's essentially useless when it comes to stopping global warming. From Reuters:

As developed countries struggle to meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets by the treaty's "first commitment period" of 2008-12, they also have to start discussing what happens next.

"The nay-sayers have all said Kyoto will never go into force, now they have been proven wrong," said climate campaigner Steve Sawyer of Greenpeace. "Now what they are saying is there will never be a second period."

Even before the United States, which produces a quarter of the man-made emissions blamed for causing global warming, pulled out, it was clear that Kyoto's aim to reduce greenhouse gas output by 5.2 percent of 1990 levels was just a first step.

Scientists say an emissions cut of at least 60 percent is needed to prevent catastrophic impacts of climate change this century, including rising sea levels, the spread of deserts and even worse weather-related disasters."

Given that a large majority of Senators in the Republican and Democratic parties oppose Kyoto and that China, India, and a lot of other developing countries basically got a free pass under the protocol, I cannot even BEGIN TO IMAGINE any sort of plan -- using today's technology -- that could achieve 60 percent emissions cuts.

So, at this point, there are a lot of things ahead of global warning on the priority list, but that may change in the future as science progresses.

Question: "I know Barbara Bush has gotten a lot of flack for her comment. I'll admit it lacked tact, but, and it has to be said, is she really wrong? We have been hearing all along that many people didnt leave because they were dirt poor and couldnt afford cars or even a bus trip to anywhere else. Now they will have access to unprecedented financial support- both from the federal government and from private donations.

Now, I dont envy what they went through in the slightest, and I'm sure many with have psychological issues with this for many years to come. But in terms of pure standard of living, isnt it possible that many of New Orleans' poorest will come out of this better than they started?" -- RightWingConspirator

Answer: First of all, here's the quote from Barbara Bush:

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this — this is working very well for them."

Barbara Bush has caught a lot of flack because she's a very rich, very privileged woman, and it rubs people the wrong way when she sees people who are sleeping in the Astrodome and proclaims that things are, "working very well for them." It gives off the same vibe as Marie Antoinette's infamous, "Let them eat cake," comment, except of course, on a lesser level. Even if this is a step up for a few people, anybody stuck sleeping on a cot, wearing donated clothes, after losing everything they owned is in really rough straits and it sounds out of touch to say things are working out, "well for them."

In any case, I haven't seen too many people making a big deal of it and Barbara Bush isn't running for office, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Question: "Why is it that the Conservatives do not fire back with the same outrageous rhetoric that the Liberals use?

This latest name calling of Bush, bombs, race, levees, etc is way "over the hill." -- Roy Hughes

Answer: When a liberal says something outrageous, other liberals tend to either ignore it or circle the wagons. Their attitude is: "He's on our side, so why should we do the rights' job for them?"

On the other hand, when a conservative says something outrageous, other conservatives usually rip them up one side and down the other. The attitude is: "He's on our side, so we better hammer him so people don't think we agree with him."

This makes all the difference because truthfully, neither side cares much about what the other side thinks.

That's not to say that prominent conservatives don't still say foolish things or that there aren't some conservatives who have a bad case of, "foot and mouth disease," but conservatives on the whole tend to be more careful about what we say because of fear of being attacked by other conservatives. Since liberals generally get a free pass from each other no matter what they say (as long as they're attacking Republicans), they go "over the hill" a lot more often.

Tomorrow will be Q&A Friday #22 at RWN.

So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.

So ask away!

Congress Approves $51.8 Billion In Katrina Aid

Officials Prepare 25,000 Body Bags

Retreating Waters Reveal Katrina's Horrors. Seniors Die In Beds; Troops Find Beaten Bodies In Convention Centre's Freezer

Over The Five Years Of President Bush's Administration, Louisiana Has Received Far More Money For Corps Civil Works Projects Than Any Other State, About $1.9 Billion; California Was A Distant Second With Less Than $1.4 Billion

New Orleans Begins Confiscating Firearms as Water Recedes (Free NYT Reg Req)

Barbour Pushes Mississippi 'Renaissance'

CBS Poll: The American People Aren't Happy With Anybody's Response To The Hurricane

Pew Poll: The Racial Split Over Katrina

Boys' Lemonade Stand Raises $1,000. 9-Year-Old Twins Launch Business To Aid Survivors

Bobby Jindal: In Katrina's Wake, Red Tape Too Often Trumped Common Sense

The Economist: Tentative Steps Down The Road To Democracy

Ken Burris: FEMA Has Met Hurricane Katrina Head On

John Hinderaker: Replacing Rehnquist Before O'connor Makes Matters Tougher On The Bush Administration And Guarantees A Showdown With Liberal Interest Groups

Democrats' Katrina Related Anti-Bush Petition Also Seeks Political Contributions

Grand Jury Indicts PAC Connected To DeLay

Berger To Pay $50,000 Fine For Taking Papers (Free NYT Reg Req)

Zogby Poll: Bush Approval At All-Time Low: Would Lose To Every President From Carter On, But Would Still Beat Kerry

Air America Has Agreed To Put The Entire $875,000 It Received From A Bronx-Based Boys & Girls Club Into An Escrow Account

Car bomb attack kills 16 in Basra

Navy: Iraqis Know MIA Pilot's, Scott" Speicher's, Whereabouts

HIV-Positive Spitter Sentenced For Attempted Murder Of New York Police

Landlord Sues Restaurateurs Over Ghosts

Website Of The Day: Mercy Corps

There's no reason to hide it anymore. Even rap stars like Kanya West have figured it out. "George Bush doesn't like black people." Just ask Condi Rice, Rod Paige or Colin Powell. Air America's Randi Rhodes knows it. She said the Bush is happy when black people are dying. That's why he signed a bill sending $10.5 billion in hurricane relief, much of it going to black communities in Louisiana and Mississippi.

When members of the Congressional Black Caucus compare conditions at the Houston Astrodome to slavery; when Jesse Jackson, Jr. defends the right of looters to steal plasma TVs in order to eat (there's a recipe I'd like to have); when Randall Robinson "reports" that "black hurricane victims in New Orleans have begun eating corpses to survive" (a recipe I'd rather skip); when these unfounded charges are repeated again and again, inflaming racial tension at a time of great national tragedy—what these courageous leaders of America's black community are really saying is "It doesn't matter how many millions of white Americans send how many billions in aid and charity to those suffering along the Gulf. America is still racist and we know it! You can't fool us!"

And I ask you, in all honesty: Who can argue with logic like that?" -- Michael Graham

Here's an interesting theoretical question: if you believe people who advocate sending the troops to war in Iraq are "chickenhawks" for not going themselves, then aren't you a hypocrite if you advocate using the military and national guard to rescue people from the aftermath of Katrina without going yourself?

Come to think of it, some of the people at FEMA are doing dirty and dangerous work too right now: so shouldn't the people who were crying "chickenhawk" about the war at least be willing to put in a job application with FEMA before they criticize the job they're doing?

You anti-war lefties: Before you try to come up with some twisted, convoluted explanation: just stop there and don't embarrass yourself.

More from RWN on the lame chickenhawk slur here. Hat tip to BlameBush! for the idea.

FEMA may think they're being ultra-responsible and making sure that relief efforts are maximally efficient by telling people that they can't bring their pets out of New Orleans, but I think they're being foolish.

Not only is it monstrously cruel to force people to leave their pets to die in that flooded, polluted, hellhole, there are plenty of stories out there that confirm that this is actually hampering rescue efforts. Here are two:

From Monsters and Critics:

"Steve Miller of Dutchtown, La., said he`s been using his boat to rescue stranded residents since Friday, the Baton Rouge Advocate reports.

...Miller said he has encountered many people who refused to be evacuated without their pets, which is frustrating him.

He also doesn`t understand why FEMA won`t allow victims to take their pets with them."

From the Kansas City Star:

"A problem-solver from Baton Rouge, La., came up with a nifty solution Wednesday to the classic animal problem: people who won’t evacuate New Orleans without their pets, vs. rescuers who won’t take pets.

Carlos Padial rented a bus after he learned that a friend’s daughter, Robin Schaffer, 43, was car-less in New Orleans with her two cats. Padial won the governor’s permission to enter the city and take out a busload of pets and their owners. Schaffer promoted the opportunity far and wide. A local radio station got wind of it."

In either case, whether you're talking about taking the animals with the rescuers or leaving them behind, it's going to hamper rescue efforts. So, if you're going to err, err on the side of saving people's pets.

If you don't, mark my words, you're going to end up with people dying because they won't leave their pets behind -- in fact, I'd be willing to bet money that's already happened over and over again.

Maybe you think people are dumb to be that loyal to their pets, maybe you don't, but accept the fact that there is a large percentage of the population who looks at things that way. So if people insist on taking their pets, FEMA needs to step up to take the animals.

*** Update #1 ***: From the comments section:

Pets are not left behind because the rescuers want to be cruel to animals, but because they have to save human lives first. What do you tell the guy that says "Bessy the cow" is his beloved pet and he is not leaving without her? Or the old lady with 50 cats, 10 dogs, several brids, and a goat? label me cruel if you want to, but this is about common sense. -- AlexinCT

I agree 100% with that.

Animals do come before humans and if there's a choice between rescuing two human beings and rescuing a human being and his pet Boa Constrictor, that's an easy decision.

I'd also add that if you want to take your cow or 40 chickens, you should understand that you may have to be moved to the end of the line for rescues.

Yet and still, if somebody wants to take a pet, he/she should be able to take a pet. That may mean he/she may have to wait longer to be rescued. So be it.

But, I would submit that -- especially at this late date in the rescue operation -- the refusal to take pets has the potential to cost a lot more lives than it saves. You don't want people hanging around in flooded, disease ridden houses for days on end, hoping against hope that they'll find some way to save their dog, too.

FEMA needs to just bite the bullet and take the people and their pets out of there.

Boy, it's just fascinating what you can learn when you peruse the left side of the blogosphere. For example, at the most popular liberal blog on earth, The Daily Kos, I ran across a post called "Website Of The Day: Mercy Corps". Brenda, whose motto on her posts in the comments section is: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you" points to a comment from "NOLA evacuee Clara Barthelemy" that says:

"The 17th street levee was bombed by the Army Corps of Engineers to save the more valuable real estate in the city... to keep the French Quarter protected, the ninth ward was sacrificed... people are afraid to speak out... everyone who was near there heard the bombings... they bombed seven times. That's why they didn't fix the levees... 20 feet of water. Gators. People dying in water. They let the parishes go, not the city center. Tourist trap was saved over human life. A six year old girl was raped in here.. 9 year old boy killed. A man in the shower beaten. No hot food. No help for elderly."

In all fairness to Brenda, she does say it's "unconfirmed," but she spends the rest of the post harping on "media censorship" which would seem to indicate she thinks it's possible that the US military bombed a levee in New Orleans, thereby flooding the city.

In the comments section, there was a link to Jacob Appelbaum's Weblog where they supposedly had more quotes from evacuees claiming the levees were bombed:

11:22 Now I’m speaking to someone else, another woman, who says some people report having witnessed “bomb sounds,” believe 17th street levee and others were blown up to manage water flow and protect more valuable portions of real estate.

Evacuee Dianne Stafford: “They blew the levee to save the city…” Saying a barge broke the levee. She is from St. Bernard Parish. “More expensive places were saved at the expense of the neighborhoods that aren’t as valuable… Rebuilding Bourbon Street matters more to the government… that’s what mattered to Governor Blanco…”

Again, you get sort of a "I can't prove this, but it sounds entirely plausible that the government deliberately flooded the city" vibe from the blog:

"I have no way of substantiating the statements of those Jacob spoke to, but I present them here as a snapshot of first-person accounts. While some misinformation may be circulating as rumor among evacuees, let’s also remember that reports of deaths and violence inside the New Orleans Superdome and Convention Center were dismissed as “rumor” in early days by authorities before reporters proved them to be true."

I did a little more searching around and I found that the ultra-lefties at the British Guardian also got in on the act, although in the version of the story they published, the government didn't bomb the levees, they just deliberately opened the flood gates:

"We had to wrap dead people in white sheets and throw them outside while the police stood by and did nothing,' said Correll Williams, a 19-year-old meat cutter from the Crowder Road district in the east of the city, who waded two miles through waist-high water to make it to the Convention Centre after hearing on the radio it was being turned into a refuge.

...Williams only left his apartment after the authorities took the decision to flood his district in an apparent attempt to sluice out some of the water that had submerged a neighbouring district. Like hundreds of others he had heard the news of the decision to flood his district on the radio. The authorities had given people in the district until 5pm on Tuesday to get out - after that they would open the floodgates.

'We thought we could live without electricity for a few weeks because we had food. But then they told us they were opening the floodgates,' said Arineatta Walker, who fled the area with her daughter and two grandchildren.

'So about two o'clock we went on to the streets and we asked the army, "Where can we go?". And they said, "Just take off because there's no one going to come back for you." They kicked my family out of there. If I knew how to hotwire a car I would have,' Walker said."

It's worth noting that the Guardian seems to show no skepticism whatsoever about these stories.

After doing a bit more research on this story, I left the mainstream Guardian and ended right back where I started, at The Daily Kos, where Spacebuddy008 had up a post called "Any0ne? MSM Labor Day night,-Locals say explosives opened 9th ward levee".

That link led me to a lefty blog called: "You Think What??" which had a post saying:

"It is being reported that homes in the Bywater section of New Orleans, the 9th Ward,flooded because they (some government entity) used too much explosive to dynamite part of the levee after the first section broke - they did this to prevent Uptown (the rich part of town) from being inundated with water from the Lake. Who is responsible for flooding so many homes-Katrina, or our government?"

Where is all this coming from? Is it pure rumor or are there facts behind the fiction?

There's no recent, legit reference to bombing I've been able to find, but apparently, there were some levees in New Orleans blown up with dynamite -- of course, that was back in 1927.

The only recent mention of dynamite (outside of rumors) I could find was by "Amos Cormier, president of the Plaquemines Parish Council" and not only was that request made after the levee was breached, it was designed to reduce flooding, and it was denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers according to the article that mentioned it.

So, can you lefties please stop floating these irresponsible rumors and implying people were deliberately drowned to death in New Orleans?

Hat tip to Knowledge Is Power for pointing out the original Kos story.

Dear Families of Loved Ones Lost In Katrina:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has requested that photographers refrain from photographing the bodies of victims of Katrina:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, heavily criticized for its slow response to the devastation caused by the hurricane, rejected requests from journalists to accompany rescue boats as they went out to search for storm victims.

An agency spokeswoman said space was needed on the rescue boats and that “the recovery of the victims is being treated with dignity and the utmost respect.”

“We have requested that no photographs of the deceased be made by the media,” the spokeswoman said in an e-mailed response to a Reuters inquiry.

We disagree. We believe that the bloated, decaying corpse of your loved one(s) should be splashed on national television and on the fronts of newspapers, even if you have not been notified of their status, because this government President Bush must be held accountable for Hurricane Katrina. After all, “people have died and suffered because of the dithering of a Republican president, and they’ll do anything in their power to hide and cover that up.”

We believe it is important that you “see the results, in some part, of Bush’s FEMA handiwork.” What we fear is that “an entire city is going to be erased from the map, and you are not going to be allowed to see it.”

So, when we demand that those who died in this natural disaster have their bloated corpse bandied about like a political prop, it is really because we care deeply about this country.

Without a shred of human decency,

Attaturk
Oliver Willis
Stirling Newberry
(and many more to come, you can be sure)

This content was used with the permission of Balloon Juice.

There are lots of great links on my other blog, Conservative Grapevine, today.

After you finish up with Right Wing News, head on over to read stories like:

Katrina hatches new breed of chickenhawk =D
Tom Ridge's duct tape
The best and worst performances of the press
The "disaster porn" stars of cable news part 2 =D

Make sure to catch all those stories and more at Conservative Grapevine!

The Administration Formally Asked Congress For $51.8 Billion In Relief And Recovery Expenses In Addition To $10.5 Billion Already Approved, Calling It The Latest Installment, But Not The Last

Donations Top $500 Million In The First 10 Days: After 9/11 $263 Mil Was Raised. After The Tsunami $163 Mill In 9 Days

FEMA Has Done 32,000 Rescues Since Katrina

Mayor, Governor at Odds Over Evacuation

Snipers Firing On Workers Repairing Cell Phone Towers

Katrina Victims to Get $2K Debit Cards

Gallup Poll Results: Public Doesn't Blame Bush For Katrina Response (Nor Should They)

Santorum: Penalize Those Who Don't Evacuate

Dean: Race Played A Role In Katrina Deaths

Frustrated: Fire Crews To Hand Out Fliers For FEMA

3 Duke Students Slip Inside New Orleans And Evacuate 7 People

Female Survivors Urged To Flash Breasts For Help. Rescuers Told Gals On Rooftops To 'Show Us What You've Got'

Bob Williams: Gov. Blanco And Mayor Nagin Failed Their Constituents

Michael Godwin: Crime Rate, Inept Pols Leveled New Orleans Before The Storm

John Stossel: In Praise Of Price Gouging

Jim Geraghty: We Failed You? Try Again.

Mark Steyn: Sniping And Griping

U.S. Forces Give Iraqis Full Control Of Najaf (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Coalition Forces Rescue Roy Hallums In Iraq After 10 Months Of Captivity

Four American Contractors Killed In Basra

Schwarzenegger Vows Gay Marriage Bill Veto (Applause)

Fla. Appeals Court Upholds Ban Of Veil In Driver's License Photo

HIV-Positive Spitter Sentenced to 13 Years

Website Of The Day: Mercy Corps

This is a blockbuster story: the Red Cross was ready to deliver supplies to the people in the Superdome on Monday/Tuesday of last week and were blocked from doing so by the local government.

Here's Fox's Major Garrett discussing the story with Hugh Hewitt:

Hugh Hewitt: You just broke a pretty big story. I was watching up on the corner television in my studio, and it's headlined that the Red Cross was blocked from delivering supplies to the Superdome, Major Garrett. Tell us what you found out.

Major Garrett: Well, the Red Cross, Hugh, had pre-positioned a literal vanguard of trucks with water, food, blankets and hygiene items. They're not really big into medical response items, but those are the three biggies that we saw people at the New Orleans Superdom, and the convention center, needing most accutely. And all of us in America, I think, reasonably asked ourselves, geez. You know, I watch hurricanes all the time. And I see correspondents standing among rubble and refugees and evacuaees. But I always either see that Red Cross or Salvation Army truck nearby. Why don't I see that?

Hugh Hewitt: And the answer is?

Major Garrett: The answer is the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security, that is the state agency responsible for that state's homeland security, told the Red Cross explicitly, you cannot come.

Hugh Hewitt: Now Major Garrett, on what day did they block the delivery? Do you know specifically?

Major Garrett: I am told by the Red Cross, immediately after the storm passed.

Hugh Hewitt: Okay, so that would be on Monday afternoon.

Major Garrett: That would have been Monday or Tuesday. The exact time, the hour, I don't have. But clearly, they had an evacuee situation at the Superdome, and of course, people gravitated to the convention center on an ad hoc basis. They sort of invented that as another place to go, because they couldn't stand the conditions at the Superdome.

Hugh Hewitt: Any doubt in the Red Cross' mind that they were ready to go, but they were blocked?

Major Garrett: No. Absolutely none. They are absolutely unequivocal on that point.

Hugh Hewitt: And are they eager to get this story out there, because they are chagrined by the coverage that's been emanating from New Orleans?

Major Garrett: I think they are. I mean, and look. Every agency that is in the private sector, Salvation Army, Red Cross, Feed The Children, all the ones we typically see are aggrieved by all the crap that's being thrown around about the response to this hurricane, because they work hand and glove with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. When FEMA is tarred and feathered, the Red Cross and the Salvation Army are tarred and feathered, because they work on a cooperative basis. They feel they are being sullied by this reaction.

Hugh Hewitt: Of course they are. Now Major Garrett, what about the Louisiana governor's office of Homeland Security. Have they responded to this charge by the Red Cross, which is a blockbuster charge?

Major Garrett: I have not been able to reach them yet. But, what they have said consistently is, and what they told the Red Cross, we don't want you to come in there, because we have evacuees that we want to get out. And if you come in, they're more likely to stay. So I want your listeners to follow me here. At the very moment that Ray Nagin, the Mayor of New Orleans was screaming where's the food, where's the water, it was over the overpass, and state officials were saying you can't come in. (*** My emphasis -- JDH ***)

...

Hugh Hewitt: I also have to conclude from what you're telling me, Major Garrett, is that had they been allowed to deliver when they wanted to deliver, which is at least a little bit prior to the levee, or at least prior to the waters rising, the supplies would have been pre-positioned, and the relief...you know, the people in the Superdome, and possibly at the convention center, I want to come back to that, would have been spared the worst of their misery.

Major Garrett: They would have been spared the lack of food, water and hygiene. I don't think there's any doubt that they would not have been spared the indignity of having nor workable bathrooms in short order.

Hugh Hewitt: Now Major Garrett, let's turn to the convention center, because this will be, in the aftermath...did the Red Cross have ready to go into the convention center the supplies that we're talking about as well?

Major Garrett: Sure. They could have gone to any location, provided that the water wasn't too high, and they got some assistance.

Hugh Hewitt: Now, were they utterly dependent upon the Louisiana state officials to okay them?

Major Garrett: Yes.

Hugh Hewitt: Because you know, they do work with FEMA. But is it your understanding that FEMA and the Red Cross and the other relief agencies must get the state's okay to act?

Major Garrett: As the Red Cross told me, they said look. We are not state actors. We are not the Army. We are a private organziation. We work in cooperation with both FEMA and the state officials. But the state told us A) it's not safe, because the water is dangerous. And we're now learning how toxic the water is. B) there's a security situation, because they didn't have a handle on the violence on the ground. And C) and I think this is most importantly, they wanted to evacuate out. They didn't want people to stay.

...

Read the whole thing at Radio Blogger.

Do you have an over-the-top liberal friend who thinks, "Too much is never enough," when it comes to hating Republicans? Then head on over to the Democratic Underground where you can learn how to make this nifty bumper sticker as a gift!

Coming soon: bumper stickers blaming Republicans for world poverty, those irritating Old Navy commercials, and that painful sensation you get when you bite down on aluminum foil!

For all the carping and complaining about FEMA's performance, they've actually done a good job in New Orleans. Yes, FEMA has proven itself to be slower than we'd like, mistake prone, and overly bureaucratic. Then again, what part of the Federal government does that not describe? The Post Office? The IRS? The Border Patrol?

Despite the mistakes FEMA has made after hurricane Katrina and the uniquely awful performance of Michael Brown, who's untelegenic, wonkish, and has a knack for appearing out of touch, this has been the biggest, most comprehensive, and well executed operation FEMA has ever run after a major disaster.

So why have things gone so badly in New Orleans after Katrina? Because of the total and complete incompetence of the local government. In fact, all 3 of the "catastrophic failures" in New Orleans were caused by the locals.

Let's take a look at them, shall we?

1) All Americans, including the people of New Orleans, are ultimately responsible for their own welfare. So when Mayor Ray Nagin told the people of New Orleans to evacuate because of the storm, they should have done so.

That being said, there were of course a lot of people in New Orleans who were old, sick, disabled or who just didn't have cars. Had Nagin planned ahead and sent those now famous buses that were left to rot, out to pick people up, undoubtedly thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people would have taken advantage of that opportunity to evacuate the city.

As a matter of fact, the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan of New Orleans calls for the city to "utilize all available resources to quickly and safely evacuate threatened areas". From the "Concept of Operations" section:

"The city of New Orleans will utilize all available resources to quickly and safely evacuate threatened areas. Those evacuated will be directed to temporary sheltering and feeding facilities as needed. When specific routes of progress are required, evacuees will be directed to those routes. Special arrangements will be made to evacuate persons unable to transport themselves or who require specific life-saving assistance. Additional personnel will be recruited to assist in evacuation procedures as needed."

Folks, it is a heck of a lot easier to send buses around on dry streets before the storm than to go door to door via helicopter over a flooded city afterwards. That's why this mistake was such a back breaker. The moment that levee broke and flooded 80% of the city, thousands of people who could have been evacuated by bus beforehand, were doomed to lose their lives.

2) The second crucial mistake was the refusal to enforce order in New Orleans after Katrina. When the city chose to have its officers stand by and allow looting to occur, the escalation of lawlessness that followed was inevitable and shouldn't have been a surprise given that New Orleans has a murder rate ten times the national average.

Not only did the ineffectiveness of the local police, the tolerance of looting, and Governor Blanco's long wait to call in the National Guard lead to theft and property damage, it led to beatings, rapes, murders, and a slow down of the rescue effort.The failure of the local government in Louisiana to strongly condemn looting from the very beginning and secure the streets was another disastrously bad decision.

3) If you were inviting, let's say, a half-dozen friends over to your house to stay for a few days, would you make any preparations? Would you maybe buy some food to eat, some soda to drink? Would you plan where they were going to sleep? You would, right? Well, you're way ahead of the mayor of New Orleans because he didn't think that far ahead.

For the city of New Orleans to use the Superdome as a storm shelter without preparing adequate food, shelter, water, cots, medical care, security, or a way for people to leave goes beyond incompetence.

Then there are those pesky buses again. In a much publicized interview last Thursday, Nagin cursed and railed against the Federal government for not moving fast enough. He also said, "I need 500 buses."

Of course, Nagin had hundreds of buses that could have been used to evacuate people before and after the storm. Unfortunately, because of Nagin's lack of foresight, he left those buses in the flood to be destroyed instead of arranging to make use of them.

Summing it all up, what you to have to remember is that the local government, not FEMA, is supposed to be the first responder after this sort of disaster. In fact, as the Washington Post notes:

"...(T)he federal plan advises state and local emergency managers not to expect federal aid for 72 to 96 hours, and base their own preparedness efforts on the need to be self-sufficient for at least that period."

The reason New Orleans has been such an incredible mess is in part because of the scale of the disaster: 80% of a large city has been flooded. The other problem is that the response of the local government has been just horrendously inept and FEMA has been forced to desperately try to "put the toothpaste back in the tube" in order to compensate for those critical, early mistakes. Unfortunately, in the partisan frenzy that has followed hurricane Katrina, that very obvious point has been lost.

Because of all the focus on hurricane Katrina, there hasn't been a lot of talk about Bush's next appointment to the Supreme Court.

The truth is that things haven't changed all that much since Bush selected Roberts.

There are still 55 Republican Senators and it's likely that the GOP can still probably raise 50 votes for the nuclear option if need be. Moreover, as we've seen with Roberts, the public expects the Democrats to raise hell no matter who Bush's nominee is, so Bush isn't going to be hurt by any Democratic squawking.

The only real difference might be that since Bush's approval rating is lower than when Roberts was selected, he may be significantly less likely to make a selection that will gravely offend his strongest supporters. Were he to pick someone like Alberto Gonzales for instance, it could cause so furor among the base that you could see Bush's already low approval rating plummet into the thirties.

As to whom Bush might pick, there are a lot of great candidates out there whom conservatives would be happy with including Sam "Scalito" Alito, Janice Rogers Brown, John Cornyn, Miguel Estrada, Emilio Garza, Edith Jones, Michael Luttig, Mel Martinez, Michael McConnell, Ted Olson, Priscilla Owen, & William Pryor.

Candidates Republicans should be wary of because of their shaky conservative credentials include Edith Brown Clement, Harriet Miers, Larry Thompson, J. Harvie Wilkinson, and of course Alberto Gonzales.

Given that Bush just went through the selection process with Roberts, he has probably already honed it down to 2-3 picks in his mind -- if he hasn't already made his selection.

Personally, I'm a big Miguel Estrada fan. But, if Bush thinks he's too young and inexperienced, Janice Rogers Brown, Michael Luttig, & Priscilla Owen would all be absolutely fantastic selections. Alito, Garza, and Jones would be right behind them.

In any case, as long as the President chooses a solid originalist for the court, conservatives should be thrilled.

Yesterday, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh talk to a black caller who said -- and he was being completely serious, this wasn't hyperbole -- that he thought George Bush wanted black people to die in New Orleans. Rush wasn't surprised by that, but he was disappointed and so am I -- because this guy wasn't an unusual case. There are black Americans all over this country who think exactly the same way that caller did. In fact, the whole, "Republicans want New Orleans to suffer because they're racists" line of thinking has been so prevalent since Katrina hit that it qualifies as a meme.

That really bugs me and I'm going to tell you why.

The Republican National Committee has been reaching to black Americans non-stop since the election ended. As far as I can tell, other than fund-raising, that's been their number 1 priority. Conservatives have relentlessly criticized behavior they see as racist -- look at Trent Lott losing his leadership position as one prominent example. George Bush appointed and picked Colin Powell to be the first black Secretary of State and then he appointed Condi Rice, one of his closest confidants, as the first black woman to be Secretary of State. Condi is wildly popular with the base...and that's nothing unusual. You can reel off black conservative after black conservative after black conservative, who are very popular & respected by Republicans. There's Condi, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, JC Watts, & Janice Rogers Brown just to name a few.

Since this disaster has occurred, Bush has gone to the area effected-- what -- 3 times in a week? The Republican controlled Congress has appropriated 10.5 billion dollars and there's more on the way. The conservative blogosphere has been flogging charities relentlessly for days. National Review is suggesting that we hold the 2008 Republican Convention in New Orleans.

And the response to that, at least in some quarters is: "You Republicans want black people to die." How come no one is asking if Democrats want black people to die?

Of course they don't either, but look at New Orleans, which is a city run by Democrats from top to bottom, in a state which has been run by Democrats from top to bottom to bottom, and you'll see a picture of total incompetence emerge. We see poor black Americans, without cars, who were openly told, ""You'll be on your own"" if there's a storm. Then the police stood by while thugs and criminals victimized these people. 40,000 mostly black Americans were shoved into the Superdome after the hurricane and the local government in New Orleans didn't even have food, water, cots, or medicine for them. It's the worst performance by a local government after a natural disaster in modern memory and most of the Americans who were adversely effected by it were black.

Then somebody goes, "Republicans hate black people," heads start nodding, and the attitude is: "Gee, we sure are lucky to have the Democrats around to look out for us." It's so nuts, it's so at odds with reality and yet, it's almost hard to blame the Democrats for trotting out this nonsense, because it has been proven to work over and over again. Undoubtedly, many black Americans who were told they were going to be on their own after the hurricane or who were left in the Superdome for days without food will vote for the Democrats responsible for that because they believe, "George Bush wants them to die" and nobody can tell them anything differently.

You know, I understand voting for a party that you think best reflects your interests and if you're a liberal, you should be voting for the Democrats. But, you have to be impervious to reason to vote for Democrats because you believe that Republicans hate black people and want them to die. Apparently, there are a lot of black Americans who apparently feel this way and I wish there was something I could say that could change their minds. But, you can't reason people out of a position they weren't reasoned into.

In the end, all I can say is that the color and the political party of the people effected by Katrina is irrelevant. The thing that matters is that they're Americans who caught the brunt of an Act of God and need help. Those of us on the right have and will continue to do our best to give that help...

Lieutenant General Russel Honore Lived Up To His 'John Wayne Dude' Nickname, Blasting Complaints That Red Tape Or Poor Security Were Snarling Relief Efforts As "B.S."

Multiple Failures Caused Relief Crisis

FEMA Pilot: Rescue Began Just Hours After Flood

FEMA Accused Of Flying Evacuees To Wrong Charleston

22 Bodies Found Tied Together In Village

As A Handful Of Pumps Toiled To Drain The Water Out Of A Sprawling City Today, The New Orleans Police Said They Would Force The 10,000 Or So Residents Left In The City To Leave (Free Nyt Reg Req)

Bush, Congress to Investigate Hurricane Katrina Response

Water Receding, But New Orleans Anxious

Afghanistan Has Offered $130,000 In Disaster Relief Aid To The Victims Of Hurricane Katrina

Pat Hynes: Hate Is All You Need

Craig Martelle: FEMA Is Not A First Responder

Wesley Pruden: The Vultures Of The Venomous Left

Mac Johnson: New Orleans Didn’t Just Go Nuts -- It’s Been Nuts

Klaus Jacob: Time For A Tough Question: Why Rebuild? (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Jon Ham: A Gathering Storm For The Media

Richard Baehr: New Orleans Myths: The Numbers Tell A Different Story

The California Legislature On Tuesday Became The First Legislative Body In The Country To Approve Same-Sex Marriages, As Gay-Rights Advocates Overcame Two Earlier Defeats In The Assembly (Veto Arnold, Veto)

Bush Pledges Wide Search For Court Seat (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Heinz Calls On Venezuela To Give Back Seized Ketchup Plant

Mother's Fury As Teenagers Who Set Boy On Fire Escape Prosecution

Website Of The Day: Mercy Corps Hurricane Relief

Over the Labor Day week-end, I was sorry to hear about the death of William Rehnquist. Unfortunately, not everyone feels the same way. Take for example, the comments you're about to read from denizens of Democratic Underground who participated in a mind-numbingly insensitive thread called "I Shall P*ss On The Grave Of William Rehnquist." Although of course not everyone at the Democratic Underground agreed with the vile sentiments you're about to read, by my count, a majority of the people posting seemed to be on board.

I don't know if that should surprise anybody given the fanatical level of hatred for all thing conservative that seems to grip so many liberals today, but it's worth noting that Rehnquist wasn't a political animal or a bomb thrower. As a matter of fact, compared to Scalia and Thomas, he was fairly low profile despite the fact that he was Chief Justice. Give that, it's fair to say that the blinding hatred you're about to see was probably inspired by little more than the fact that Rehnquist was a conservative judge.

From the thread:

dbt: I Shall P*ss On The Grave Of William Rehnquist. Anybody know where they're gonna bury that miserable excuse for a human being--and when? (Ain't sure how long I can hold this much beer, y'know...)

SUDDEN PANG OF CONSCIENCE: Oh, my GODDESS! What will the Freeps think when they see such a post?!?!?

jim3775: I wonder if there will be a line? n/t

Jamastiene: Yeah, and I'll be squatting with pride when it's my turn. n/t

Spike from MN: And I'll be squatting right behind you.

benburch: I'll wear a kilt...And leave a steaming reminder of my love for the GOP there.

KzooDem: He's going to be buried in Arlington Cemetery. I know where his grave is. I was visiting Arlington a couple years ago on a biz trip there. While walking among the headstones, I came across Rhenquist's, as his wife died in the 90's and was already buried there.

I actually marked it on a map so when I return someday I could go spit on his grave

Pepperbelly: They'll probably hide the sh*t sipper's carcass somewhere else...just because of the sanitation problem it would incur as so many of the righteously angry and anally raped citizenry line up to do just that very thing. Let me know when you're ready. I got a great diuretic.

hawkowl88: IT IS PERSONAL. This is not an academic exercise. This is what infuriates me about the democratic leadership and spineless liberals. This is why we lose elections--and as a result good people, innocent people die. I'm a liberal with a spine. Meaning I believe there is evil in the world and it needs to be called out and fought to the death. You don't have to be evil to fight evil true, but you DON'T feel sorry for it when it dies. Maybe you don't rejoice, but you sure as hell feel relief. As for his family who mourns the death of evil, I don't feel sorry for those wellwishers of those who would do me harm.

Bozita: If the back of your leg gets wet, you're standing too close to his grave. Many Americans want to participate.

LibertyorDeath: I remember you. No he was a heartless piece of trash and that's why people with Heart wouldn't mind p*ssing on his grave. Do you get it? Good

nothingshocksmeanymore: You're right. We really should sh*t on his grave. The man was a racist pig..I mourn him like I mourn all the KKK gone before him.

scarletwoman: Just show me where the line is. I shall drink copiously in preparation. nt

ZombyWoof: I'll sh*t on his grave. And then dig up his corpse and go bowling with his skull.

lionesspriyanka: go for it....no matter what other people say. conservatives by and large need their graves peed on

Since Katrina hit, the left has been pumping out wacko commentary practically non-stop. However, I don't think I've run across anything that tops this:

"The lecture comes down to this: BUSH CAUSED THIS DISASTER.

And YOU caused this disaster, you southern soft-heads, because you voted for that ape.

Bush caused this disaster by ignoring global warming. He caused it by listening to quack pseudoscientists instead of real scientists.

Bush caused this disaster by un-funding SELA, a program designed to keep levees at proper strength in New Orleans. A simple fact of history: New Orleans -- the one major city in the south with culture and style -- was obliterated by Bush's refusal to fund hurricane and flood protection measures. Unforgivable!

Bush caused this disaster by squashing FEMA. Money was diverted from that agency to Iraq, leaving our emergency services impotent.

Bush caused this disaster by transferring the National Guard to Iraq, where they serve only one purpose: THEFT. Instead of protecting American citizens, our troops now protect Haliburton and other companies, who are carrying out their evil plan to buy up everything worth buying in that country. The money is being siphoned out of Iraq and into the pockets of Cheney, Bush and their greedy cronies.

Bush caused this easily-forecast disaster by not having troops on hand to evacuate citizens.

Bush caused this catastrophe by fiddling -- or GIT-tarring -- while New Orleans drowned.

That's the message you need to hear, you barbaric, Jesus-addled, Limbaugh-tomized red-state hicks.

And you will sit there and listen to it and say NOTHING in response. We blue-staters are sick to death of your arrogant lies and smears and fake science and supernaturalistic yawpings and ludicrous self-deceits.

You literally cannot continue to exist unless we blue-staters give you money. The situation is that simple. You have been leeching off of us for years, and now you depend on our charity for your very lives.

So if you Jesusmaniac simpletons really want that cash, you will just sit there and SHUT UP and not say ONE DAMN WORD in your defense.

BUSH CAUSED THIS DISASTER. YOU CAUSED THIS DISASTER BY VOTING FOR BUSH.

You don't like that message? Then don't take our money!

If I read ONE MORE article in which a science-hating red state pundit attacks progressives, I'm going to take the money I was going to donate to disaster relief and spend it on a nice Thai meal. And I'm going to suggest that all other progressives do likewise.

I'm going to say "DROWN AND DIE, YOU ARROGANT HILLBILLY SOUTHERN-FRIED LEECHES!!"

As Shakespeare said, you did make love to this employment. You inflicted your fate on yourselves -- by inflicting Bush upon the world." -- Joseph Cannon from Cannonfire

Hey, Ray Nagin, Mayor of New Orleans: After hurricane Katrina, your police officers looted, stood by while stores were sacked, and were run out of the Superdome by an angry mob.

Because of the incompetence and ineffectiveness of your officers, people were menaced, raped, beaten, murdered, and rescue efforts were significantly hampered. Now, even as the Feds you've tried to shift the blame to save people and enforce order in your city, your officers are being pulled off the streets.

So, Ray Nagin, what is your police department going to do now?

They're going to Disney Land Las Vegas!!!

Steve Sailer, whom I didn't much care for in the first place, wrote a nasty, offensive, & racist column about what happened in New Orleans that contained the two following quotes among others:

"What you won’t hear, except from me, is that "Let the good times roll" is an especially risky message for African-Americans. The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society."

"In contrast to New Orleans, there was only minimal looting after the horrendous 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan—because, when you get down to it, Japanese aren't blacks."

After reading this bigoted garbage, I'm not going to waste a lot of time on Sailer or Vdare (where this was published), beyond saying that I think this is disgusting, ridiculous, & beyond the pale.

As to Sailer's assertion, that there's something wrong with blacks that led to looting and violence in New Orleans, that's complete crap.

Any time you have a situation where the police refuse to enforce order, where they walk off the job, where they themselves loot, where they stand by and watch as stores are looted, you're going to see increasing theft, violence, & anarchy until order is restored. It doesn't have anything to do with color, it has to do with human nature.

The reality is that there were relatively few people in New Orleans after Katrina hit who were out roaming the streets looking for prey and loot. Unfortunately, that 1,2,3% of a population can do a disproportionate amount of damage when the police give them a free pass to commit mayhem -- and that's exactly what happened in New Orleans.

To smear the overwhelming majority of people in New Orleans by lumping them with the thugs and punks based on the color on their skin is disgraceful. Criticism based on behavior is fine. Criticism based on skin color is not.

"Journalists who are long on opinions and short on knowledge have no idea what is entailed in moving hundreds of tons of relief supplies into an area the size of England in which power lines are down, no gasoline is available, and roads and airports were covered with water or debris. Yet this was done within four days of Katrina dissipating. The most monumental and successful disaster relief operation in world history is being libeled as a national disgrace.

Idiot journalists wonder why helicopters were not used to bring food and water right away to the people in Louisiana's superdome. The reasons are (1) the local government was supposed to have provided them with food and water for three days, but didn't; and (2) you don't divert helicopters from rescuing people in danger of drowning to the aid of people whose lives are not at risk. Thousands of people were rescued from rooftops in Louisiana and Mississippi Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. This wasn't a failure just because there were no television cameras there to record it." -- Jack Kelly

After you finish up with Right Wing News today, make sure to head over to my other blog, Conservative Grapevine, to see what the right side of the blogosphere has to say about hurricane Katrina.

If want to keep up to speed with what's going on, make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today for the perspective the partisan MSM won't give you.

"If, as a nation, we want the federal government to assume the role of first-responder in our communities, then I imagine its size and power will have to be massively increased for it to have the capacity to respond to local and regional natural disasters in this way -- even if it could. The federal resources and infrastructure for such an approach is mind-boggling. And it's possible that the very nature of our governmental system would have to be adjusted. And I wonder, in the end, whether it would make much difference with a disaster of this magnitude. (Indeed, even now, the vast majority of second-guessing and criticism -- rightly or wrongly -- is focused on the federal government's competence.) When the various "wise" overseers in Congress (who never seem to examine themselves) gear-up to examine the relief effort, let's hope they also look at the early actions of local and state first-responders. The competence of these officials might help explain whether the federal government's response was made more difficult. I don't know. And maybe strengthening local and state leadership is a key answer, and maybe the public will need to be more attentive to the quality and competence of their local and state officials and governments. I do not deny a major federal role in dealing with disasters. Indeed, I enthusiastically support it -- as I do federalism.

I also think as time passes, we are likely to learn more about the incredible and extraordinary efforts of both governmental and private institutions, faults and all. A CAT 4 hurricane, covering hundreds of miles along the Gulf Coast and millions of people; followed by flooding making 80% of New Orleans and large parts of Mississippi and Alabama unreachable; the complete destruction of infrastructure; and the almost immediate collapse of civil order, resulting in looting and worse. Five-days have passed at this writing; the military has taken back the streets; tens of thousands of lives have been saved; thousands more have been evacuated; and medical treatment is now being provided to most people. No, I'm not trying to paint a false picture, just a more complete one. And I realize that's little solace to those who've lost everything." -- Mark Levin

Mayor: Katrina Death Toll May Hit 10,000

City To Offer Free Trips to Las Vegas for Officers (WHAT? NOW???? Free NYT Reg Req)

New Orleans Police To Be Pulled Off Streets

10,000 Still Refuse To Leave New Orleans

Kuwait Pledges $500m For Hurricane Relief

Major Gap Closed In New Orleans Levee

Katrina Medical Help Held Up By Red Tape

Red Cross Bureaucracy Causing Frustrations

In The Chaos That Was Causeway Boulevard, This Group Of Refugees Stood Out: A 6-Year-Old Boy Walking Down The Road, Holding A 5-Month-Old, Surrounded By Five Toddlers Who Followed Him Around As If He Were Their Leader. (Free LA Times Reg Req)

French Quarter Holdouts Create 'Tribes'

Rescuers Pluck Residents From Hellish Waters. ‘God Sent Us To Get You’

Celine Dion: Let 'Em Loot! Singer Claims 'They're So Poor They've Never Touched Anything In Their Lives'

Barbara Bush: "And So Many Of The People In The Arena Here, You Know, Were Underprivileged Anyway, So This --This Is Working Very Well For Them." (DOH)

Sean Penn's Rescue Bid Sinks

The Full City Of New Orleans Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan

Mark Steyn: Proof That Nothing Changed After Sept. 11

Mark Steyn: The Big Easy Rocked, But Didn't Roll

Christopher Ruddy: Don't Blame Bush For Katrina (Excellent)

Ben Stein: Get Off Of Bush's Back

Claim: The Nation Of Islam In Los Angeles Is Calling On The Crips And Bloods Street Gangs To Stop Fighting Each Other – And To Unite In A Jihad Against The LAPD. (Free LAT Reg Req)

Sen. Chafee Likely To Be Challenged From Right

Insurgents Seize Iraqi Town (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Iran's Leader Calls For Jihad Against Israel

Bush Nominates Roberts For Chief Justice

Website Of The Day: Mercy Corps Hurricane Katrina Relief