Anybody know what happened to New Orleans' anthrax labs? That's the excellent and scary question Defense Tech pal Russ Kick asks over at the Memory Hole.
In and around the Big Easy are a number of Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) labs, meant to handle some of the nastier biological agents out there -- stuff like anthrax, plague, and genetically-engineering mousepox. Louisiana State University’s Medical School and the State of Louisiana both ran BSL-3s within the city. Tulane kept 5,000 monkeys for biodefense studies in its "National Primate Research Center," located in nearby Covington.
"What's happened to the infected animals? Are they free and roaming?" Russ wants to know. "Are they dead, with their diseased bodies floating in the flood waters? And what about the cultures and vials of the diseases? Are they still secure? Are they being stolen? Were they washed away, now forming part of the toxic soup that coats the city?"
And not to turn the fear dial up any higher, but, if the national average is any guide, the keepers of the Louisiana labs weren't particularly experienced. 97 percent of the "principal investigators" who got biodefense grants from the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases were newbies to that kind of work.
The government oversight these neophytes get is minimal, at best. Instead, the labs are expected to police themselves, through "Institutional Biosafety Committees." But the records of these committees is, to put it politely, uneven. When the Sunshine Project, a biowatchdog group, "asked for all minutes of all meetings of [Tulane's] IBC since January 1st, 2002, Tulane replied that it has no responsive documents. That is, Tulane University cannot produce a single page of minutes of any Institutional Biosafety Committee meeting for the past two and half years."
Friday, September 09, 2005
Heresy?
Here's Tony Campolo commenting on the meaning of Katrina and the role of God:
Perhaps we would do well to listen to the likes of Rabbi Harold Kushner, who contends that God is not really as powerful as we have claimed. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say that God is omnipotent. Kushner points out that omnipotence is a Greek philosophical concept, but it is not in his Bible. Instead, the Hebrew Bible contends that God is mighty. That means that God is a greater force in the universe than all the other forces combined.
In scripture we get the picture of a cosmic struggle going on between the forces of darkness and the forces of light. The good news is that, in the end, God will be victorious. That is why we can sing in the Hallelujah Chorus, "the kingdoms of this world [will] become the Kingdom of our Lord."
Now, I'm no theologian (Campolo, I believe, is), but this strikes me as heresy. God is omnipotent. If not, he's not God. The cosmic struggle in the world is not between God and Satan, it's between God's representatives (redeemed man and the heavenly hosts) and Satan. God, by definition, struggles not.
Discuss among yourselves.
Perhaps we would do well to listen to the likes of Rabbi Harold Kushner, who contends that God is not really as powerful as we have claimed. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say that God is omnipotent. Kushner points out that omnipotence is a Greek philosophical concept, but it is not in his Bible. Instead, the Hebrew Bible contends that God is mighty. That means that God is a greater force in the universe than all the other forces combined.
In scripture we get the picture of a cosmic struggle going on between the forces of darkness and the forces of light. The good news is that, in the end, God will be victorious. That is why we can sing in the Hallelujah Chorus, "the kingdoms of this world [will] become the Kingdom of our Lord."
Now, I'm no theologian (Campolo, I believe, is), but this strikes me as heresy. God is omnipotent. If not, he's not God. The cosmic struggle in the world is not between God and Satan, it's between God's representatives (redeemed man and the heavenly hosts) and Satan. God, by definition, struggles not.
Discuss among yourselves.
P-Man Turns Orange
This week, the boy was promoted to the Orange defense (as opposed to the Black defense) for the DIXIE RAIDERS. While he's not starting, he'll garner more playing time in addition to his kickoff and kick return team duties.
I'm proud of the little guy. This is his first year of football, he's just about the smallest guy on the team, and he didn't have a clue what he was doing six weeks ago.
But he's tough, aggressive, smart, and does what the coaches tell him. Actually, doing what the coaches tell him has the most to do with his promotion. Coaches like that.
Let's see how he does this weekend, and whether he can hold on to his Orange status.
I'm proud of the little guy. This is his first year of football, he's just about the smallest guy on the team, and he didn't have a clue what he was doing six weeks ago.
But he's tough, aggressive, smart, and does what the coaches tell him. Actually, doing what the coaches tell him has the most to do with his promotion. Coaches like that.
Let's see how he does this weekend, and whether he can hold on to his Orange status.
This Is Not Surprising
Amid all the bashing of FEMA director Michael Brown as an incompetent, unqualified, resume-padding political hack, one small factor has been overlooked: His job required Senate confirmation, didn't it? Indeed it did. And not only was Brown confirmed, but he was apparently confirmed by a unanimous voice vote -- when the Senate was controlled by Democrats. An enterprising blogger has found the transcript of Brown's June 19, 2002 confirmation hearing before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, then chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman. The whole affair, including tributes from Brown's home-state senators, apparently lasted less then an hour, and ended with Lieberman saying, "Mr. Brown, I thank you very much. I will certainly support your nomination. I will do my best to move it through the committee as soon as possible so we can have you fully and legally at work in your new position." The hearing was for Brown's nomination as deputy director of FEMA; it appears that Brown did not have to be re-confirmed when he became director.
Those goofs in Washington are frauds.
Those goofs in Washington are frauds.
Nooooooo!!!!!
This morning on Fox's "Fox and Friends," former Indiana Democrat congressman and 9/11 commissioner Tim Roemer called on President Bush to name former President Jimmy Carter to the head of efforts to rebuild New Orleans.
Roemer told the stunned hosts: "The second thing we should do is put somebody like former President Jimmy Carter in charge of rebuilding New Orleans."
Roemer told the stunned hosts: "The second thing we should do is put somebody like former President Jimmy Carter in charge of rebuilding New Orleans."
Quote of the Day II
The world has proclaimed the reign of freedom, especially of late, but what do we see in this freedom of theirs? Nothing but slavery and self-destruction! For the world says: "You have desires and so satisfy them, for you have the same rights as the most rich and powerful. Don't be afraid of satisfying them and even multiply your desires." That is the modern doctrine of the world. In that they see freedom. And what follows from this right of multiplication of desires? In the rich, isolation and spiritual suicide; in the poor, envy and murder; for they have been given rights, but have not been shown the means of satisfying their wants. -- Dostoevsky from "The Brothers Karamazov"
A New Queen of the Confederacy of Dunces
Nancy Pelosi.
KYRA PHILLIPS: Just another reality check. Congresswoman Pelosi, as we continue to follow, of course this developing information coming in. The hardest part. And I think it's far from over. We are going to continue to hear about people that have been trapped. I mean, you are talking about such a swath of a region here. It's just hard to listen to that, and to have to talk about that. And no doubt, it will be never ending. But I want to ask you, as you stand here and continue to criticize the administration, and criticize the director of FEMA, I do want to tell you the White House coming forward today. Scott McClellan coming forward today, and basically disputing your account of your meeting with the president. And I'm looking at it here saying that, you said you urged the president to replace the embattled FEMA director because of the poor emergency response to Hurricane Katrina. Um, however, McClellan saying that this is, that that's not what you discussed with the president. That you were discussing other things with the president, and that things are being twisted here.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: That's absolutely not true. Mr. McClellan wasn't there. So he couldn't possibly know. What happened was, I said to the president, Mr. President, we can begin to help these victims of Katrina become whole again. First thing you can do is to replace Michael Brown as the head of FEMA. To which the president said, why would I do that? And I said, because of what happened last week. And the failure of FEMA to be the real link between the federal government and the people in need in our country. The social compact to which the president said, what didn't go right last week? That's what happened in the meeting. I stand by that. If the president thinks everything went right last week, and he wants to keep Michael Brown there, then I think that's going to be a cost to the American people and livelihood. But if he wants to then say that it didn't go right last week, then he should replace Michael Brown.
PHILLIPS: But if we go back. I mean, we can go back year after year after year and we can talk about FEMA. And what went wrong within FEMA. And should FEMA be under the Department of Homeland Security. But if we want to be historical here, and we want to go back in time, I mean, we can go back to the Times-Picayune and the investigation that when reporters revealed that time after time, moneys were asked for from all types of various politicians. And politicians you worked side by side with. And laws that you yourself vote on, and moneys that should have gone to Louisiana to take care of the problems with regard to the flood control systems. And I think it's unfair that FEMA is just singled out. There are so many people responsible...what has happened in the state of Louisiana.
REP. PELOSI: That is true. And I'm sorry that you think it's unfair. But I don't. I think it's unfair to the people who lost their family members, their live, their livelihoods, their homes, their opportunity. And FEMA has done a poor job. It had no chance.
PHILLIPS: What about all the warnings from the Army Corps of Engineers? Years ago. Saying there's a problem with these levees and with this city.
REP. PELOSI: Kyra --
PHILLIPS: It's Kyra.
REP. PELOSI: If you want to make a case for the White House, go on their payroll.
KYRA PHILLIPS: Just another reality check. Congresswoman Pelosi, as we continue to follow, of course this developing information coming in. The hardest part. And I think it's far from over. We are going to continue to hear about people that have been trapped. I mean, you are talking about such a swath of a region here. It's just hard to listen to that, and to have to talk about that. And no doubt, it will be never ending. But I want to ask you, as you stand here and continue to criticize the administration, and criticize the director of FEMA, I do want to tell you the White House coming forward today. Scott McClellan coming forward today, and basically disputing your account of your meeting with the president. And I'm looking at it here saying that, you said you urged the president to replace the embattled FEMA director because of the poor emergency response to Hurricane Katrina. Um, however, McClellan saying that this is, that that's not what you discussed with the president. That you were discussing other things with the president, and that things are being twisted here.
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: That's absolutely not true. Mr. McClellan wasn't there. So he couldn't possibly know. What happened was, I said to the president, Mr. President, we can begin to help these victims of Katrina become whole again. First thing you can do is to replace Michael Brown as the head of FEMA. To which the president said, why would I do that? And I said, because of what happened last week. And the failure of FEMA to be the real link between the federal government and the people in need in our country. The social compact to which the president said, what didn't go right last week? That's what happened in the meeting. I stand by that. If the president thinks everything went right last week, and he wants to keep Michael Brown there, then I think that's going to be a cost to the American people and livelihood. But if he wants to then say that it didn't go right last week, then he should replace Michael Brown.
PHILLIPS: But if we go back. I mean, we can go back year after year after year and we can talk about FEMA. And what went wrong within FEMA. And should FEMA be under the Department of Homeland Security. But if we want to be historical here, and we want to go back in time, I mean, we can go back to the Times-Picayune and the investigation that when reporters revealed that time after time, moneys were asked for from all types of various politicians. And politicians you worked side by side with. And laws that you yourself vote on, and moneys that should have gone to Louisiana to take care of the problems with regard to the flood control systems. And I think it's unfair that FEMA is just singled out. There are so many people responsible...what has happened in the state of Louisiana.
REP. PELOSI: That is true. And I'm sorry that you think it's unfair. But I don't. I think it's unfair to the people who lost their family members, their live, their livelihoods, their homes, their opportunity. And FEMA has done a poor job. It had no chance.
PHILLIPS: What about all the warnings from the Army Corps of Engineers? Years ago. Saying there's a problem with these levees and with this city.
REP. PELOSI: Kyra --
PHILLIPS: It's Kyra.
REP. PELOSI: If you want to make a case for the White House, go on their payroll.
And I Thought Newport Had Issues
Why was there criminal activity in New Orleans in the aftermath of the hurricane? Because that city is (or was) full of criminals. Nice town, New Orleans.
Hillary Speaks
Investor's Business Daily waxes eloquent about Hillary's falsehoods:
Hillary Clinton says FEMA was more effective when her husband was president. The victims of Hurricane Floyd might venture a different opinion, and it wasn't FEMA that kept supplies from the Superdome.
During a post-Katrina conference call with reporters, Sen. Clinton said, "Helping localities do what they needed to do to mitigate damage — that philosophy governed FEMA during the Clinton administration. It obviously was rejected by this administration."
Does that mean Clinton's FEMA was the model of government efficiency and effectiveness? Or was it closer to the DMV and post office? Just ask the tens of thousands of people left stranded up and down the Eastern Seaboard by Hurricane Floyd in 1999.
"We're starting to move the trailers in," said then-FEMA director and current Hillary favorite James Lee Witt, nearly a month after Floyd first hit. "It's been so wet, it's been difficult to get things in there" — an explanation that sounds familiar.
Witt was also a guest on Jesse Jackson's CNN show, "Both Sides Now," in Floyd's aftermath. Jackson complained then that "bridges are overwhelmed, levees are overwhelmed, whole towns underwater. . . . (It's) an awesome scene of tragedy."
Gee, where have we heard that recently?
Many have called for the head of FEMA Director Mike Brown. But Bill Clinton's choice to be Southwest Regional FEMA director in 1993 was even less qualified, earning his job handling disaster recovery of a different sort.
Raymond "Buddy" Young, a former Arkansas state trooper, got his choice assignment after leading efforts to discredit other state troopers in the infamous Troopergate scandal. If a storm like Katrina struck the Big Easy back then, Young would've been in charge.
Former House Speaker Tip O'Neill used to say all politics is local. Forgotten in the Katrina disaster and its aftermath is that so is most law enforcement and disaster preparedness.
Why does Hillary think Houston's Astrodome was all set up to receive thousands of refugees? It was because Houston and Texas authorities planned for it to take thousands of refugees from Galveston, where a hurricane in 1900 killed 8,000 people.
Totally clueless about their duties were officials at Louisiana's — not Washington's — Homeland Security Department. They blocked a convoy of Red Cross trucks filled with water, food, blankets and hygiene items to the New Orleans Superdome after Katrina struck because it would have encouraged refugees to stay there.
The Red Cross Web site says: "The state Homeland Security Department had requested — and continues to request — that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane." The ARC was told its "presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city."
On Aug. 27, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco was asked at a press conference what could be done to avert disaster. Her pathetic answer was, "We can pray hard that the intensity will weaken." That was Louisiana's disaster-recovery plan.
What does this prove? That Hillary and Jesse and Harry Reid are petty, disgraceful, very small people. But that's probably not a surprise to most people.
Hillary Clinton says FEMA was more effective when her husband was president. The victims of Hurricane Floyd might venture a different opinion, and it wasn't FEMA that kept supplies from the Superdome.
During a post-Katrina conference call with reporters, Sen. Clinton said, "Helping localities do what they needed to do to mitigate damage — that philosophy governed FEMA during the Clinton administration. It obviously was rejected by this administration."
Does that mean Clinton's FEMA was the model of government efficiency and effectiveness? Or was it closer to the DMV and post office? Just ask the tens of thousands of people left stranded up and down the Eastern Seaboard by Hurricane Floyd in 1999.
"We're starting to move the trailers in," said then-FEMA director and current Hillary favorite James Lee Witt, nearly a month after Floyd first hit. "It's been so wet, it's been difficult to get things in there" — an explanation that sounds familiar.
Witt was also a guest on Jesse Jackson's CNN show, "Both Sides Now," in Floyd's aftermath. Jackson complained then that "bridges are overwhelmed, levees are overwhelmed, whole towns underwater. . . . (It's) an awesome scene of tragedy."
Gee, where have we heard that recently?
Many have called for the head of FEMA Director Mike Brown. But Bill Clinton's choice to be Southwest Regional FEMA director in 1993 was even less qualified, earning his job handling disaster recovery of a different sort.
Raymond "Buddy" Young, a former Arkansas state trooper, got his choice assignment after leading efforts to discredit other state troopers in the infamous Troopergate scandal. If a storm like Katrina struck the Big Easy back then, Young would've been in charge.
Former House Speaker Tip O'Neill used to say all politics is local. Forgotten in the Katrina disaster and its aftermath is that so is most law enforcement and disaster preparedness.
Why does Hillary think Houston's Astrodome was all set up to receive thousands of refugees? It was because Houston and Texas authorities planned for it to take thousands of refugees from Galveston, where a hurricane in 1900 killed 8,000 people.
Totally clueless about their duties were officials at Louisiana's — not Washington's — Homeland Security Department. They blocked a convoy of Red Cross trucks filled with water, food, blankets and hygiene items to the New Orleans Superdome after Katrina struck because it would have encouraged refugees to stay there.
The Red Cross Web site says: "The state Homeland Security Department had requested — and continues to request — that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane." The ARC was told its "presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city."
On Aug. 27, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco was asked at a press conference what could be done to avert disaster. Her pathetic answer was, "We can pray hard that the intensity will weaken." That was Louisiana's disaster-recovery plan.
What does this prove? That Hillary and Jesse and Harry Reid are petty, disgraceful, very small people. But that's probably not a surprise to most people.
Quote of the Day
From Bill Furr:
Regarding remarks by Sen Clinton and others both left and right: It's called a disaster because it overwhelms our ability to respond and to mitigate the disruption in communications, supplies, medical services, and everything else in daily life. If we could respond completely and immediately, the it would just be a minor inconvenience.
Regarding remarks by Sen Clinton and others both left and right: It's called a disaster because it overwhelms our ability to respond and to mitigate the disruption in communications, supplies, medical services, and everything else in daily life. If we could respond completely and immediately, the it would just be a minor inconvenience.
The Insurrection Act?
I initially thought the feds handled the Katrina aftermath poorly. Now I'm beginning to think that maybe their hands were tied.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.
For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort. Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's control.
The debate began after officials realized that Hurricane Katrina had exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration's senior domestic security officials, the plan failed to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated.
As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis.
To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established.
While combat troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.
But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.
"Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?" asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.
Officials in Louisiana agree that the governor would not have given up control over National Guard troops in her state as would have been required to send large numbers of active-duty soldiers into the area. But they also say they were desperate and would have welcomed assistance by active-duty soldiers.
"I need everything you have got," Ms. Blanco said she told Mr. Bush last Monday, after the storm hit.
In an interview, she acknowledged that she did not specify what sorts of soldiers. "Nobody told me that I had to request that," Ms. Blanco said. "I thought that I had requested everything they had. We were living in a war zone by then."
Regardless, the head of FEMA is still a fool and needs to go.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.
For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort. Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's control.
The debate began after officials realized that Hurricane Katrina had exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration's senior domestic security officials, the plan failed to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated.
As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis.
To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established.
While combat troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.
But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.
"Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?" asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.
Officials in Louisiana agree that the governor would not have given up control over National Guard troops in her state as would have been required to send large numbers of active-duty soldiers into the area. But they also say they were desperate and would have welcomed assistance by active-duty soldiers.
"I need everything you have got," Ms. Blanco said she told Mr. Bush last Monday, after the storm hit.
In an interview, she acknowledged that she did not specify what sorts of soldiers. "Nobody told me that I had to request that," Ms. Blanco said. "I thought that I had requested everything they had. We were living in a war zone by then."
Regardless, the head of FEMA is still a fool and needs to go.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Doh!
Turns out Sandy Berger is a thieving crook. But why did he steal what he stole?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A judge on Thursday ordered Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser, to pay a $50,000 fine for illegally taking classified documents from the National Archives.
The punishment handed down by U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson exceeded the $10,000 fine recommended by government lawyers. Under the deal, Berger avoids prison time but he must surrender access to classified government materials for three years.
"The court finds the fine is inadequate because it doesn't reflect the seriousness of the offense," Robinson said, as a grim-faced Berger stood silently. . . .
The sentencing capped a bizarre sequence of events in which Berger admitted to sneaking classified documents out of the Archives in his suit, later destroying some of them in his office and then lying about it.
After initially saying it was an "honest mistake," Berger pleaded guilty in April to a misdemeanor of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, which contained information relating to terror threats in the United States during the 2000 millennium celebration.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A judge on Thursday ordered Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser, to pay a $50,000 fine for illegally taking classified documents from the National Archives.
The punishment handed down by U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson exceeded the $10,000 fine recommended by government lawyers. Under the deal, Berger avoids prison time but he must surrender access to classified government materials for three years.
"The court finds the fine is inadequate because it doesn't reflect the seriousness of the offense," Robinson said, as a grim-faced Berger stood silently. . . .
The sentencing capped a bizarre sequence of events in which Berger admitted to sneaking classified documents out of the Archives in his suit, later destroying some of them in his office and then lying about it.
After initially saying it was an "honest mistake," Berger pleaded guilty in April to a misdemeanor of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, which contained information relating to terror threats in the United States during the 2000 millennium celebration.
Nagin and Blanco Have A History
From November of 2003:
In a bold and potentially risky move, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin crossed party lines Monday to endorse Republican Bobby Jindal, who is locked in a tight governor's race with Lt. Gov. Kathleen Blanco, the Democratic standard bearer in the Nov. 15 runoff.
In recent days, Nagin said he faced considerable pressure from the state Democratic power structure to go with Blanco, citing U.S. Sens. John Breaux and Mary Landrieu in particular.
Without naming names, Nagin said Blanco supporters attached words like "risk" and "consequences" and "repercussions" to the prospect of his backing Jindal.
"They talked about this not being in the best interests of the city of New Orleans and that they would let people know that," Nagin said.
Using what he described as the "hip hop vernacular" favored by his teenage sons, Nagin hinted that Blanco's backers issued threats, indicating that "if we get in we're going to basically ice you out."
In a bold and potentially risky move, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin crossed party lines Monday to endorse Republican Bobby Jindal, who is locked in a tight governor's race with Lt. Gov. Kathleen Blanco, the Democratic standard bearer in the Nov. 15 runoff.
In recent days, Nagin said he faced considerable pressure from the state Democratic power structure to go with Blanco, citing U.S. Sens. John Breaux and Mary Landrieu in particular.
Without naming names, Nagin said Blanco supporters attached words like "risk" and "consequences" and "repercussions" to the prospect of his backing Jindal.
"They talked about this not being in the best interests of the city of New Orleans and that they would let people know that," Nagin said.
Using what he described as the "hip hop vernacular" favored by his teenage sons, Nagin hinted that Blanco's backers issued threats, indicating that "if we get in we're going to basically ice you out."
Democracy Is No Longer A Pipe Dream
From The Economist:
American influence has helped to tip the balance of forces in the Middle East towards reform. The changes remain shallow for now—even in Egypt, which is holding its first contested presidential election this week—but democracy is no longer a pipe dream.
American influence has helped to tip the balance of forces in the Middle East towards reform. The changes remain shallow for now—even in Egypt, which is holding its first contested presidential election this week—but democracy is no longer a pipe dream.
They Had A Plan
The zookeepers figured out what to do. If only they were running the City of New Orleans.
"We are thankful that most of the reports we have received about the zoos and aquariums in the area are hopeful," the association said on its Web site. "It is still too early to assess the full impact and the danger is not over yet for some areas. Flooding continues to be a problem and is actually increasing in the worst-hit areas."
Burnette said the zoo took pointers from the Miami zoo after deadly Hurricane Andrew struck in 1992, then the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history. "We have worked closely with Miami MetroZoo ever since Hurricane Andrew, and we totally revised our hurricane plan after talking to them. We have a protocol we go through whenever we know something's brewing," she said.
In anticipation of Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans zoo stockpiled fuel, food and other supplies, Burnette said. When it hit last Monday, the staff fled to the sturdy reptile building and raided the cafeteria for food. Some staff remained at the zoo, she said.
"We are thankful that most of the reports we have received about the zoos and aquariums in the area are hopeful," the association said on its Web site. "It is still too early to assess the full impact and the danger is not over yet for some areas. Flooding continues to be a problem and is actually increasing in the worst-hit areas."
Burnette said the zoo took pointers from the Miami zoo after deadly Hurricane Andrew struck in 1992, then the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history. "We have worked closely with Miami MetroZoo ever since Hurricane Andrew, and we totally revised our hurricane plan after talking to them. We have a protocol we go through whenever we know something's brewing," she said.
In anticipation of Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans zoo stockpiled fuel, food and other supplies, Burnette said. When it hit last Monday, the staff fled to the sturdy reptile building and raided the cafeteria for food. Some staff remained at the zoo, she said.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
An Athiest Rips Liberal Christianity
Filmmaker Brian Flemming says:
The biggest division on the panel was not between Moore and me, however. I think that fundies believe crazy things, but I acknowledge that once you step into their fantasy world where a hateful, disturbed god wrote a book called the Holy Bible, the hateful, disturbed conclusions of Christian fundamentalists do make some kind of internal sense.
Liberal Christianity, despite being non-hateful and on many issues even ethical, is hopelessly incoherent, however. Liberal Christianity says a perfect God wrote a perfect book--but he made mistakes. Or, alternately, liberal Christianity says the book is an extremely flawed and even disgusting work written by men--but special attention should still be paid to it. Liberal Christianity says religion shouldn't stand in the way of science--but a dead man did really rise from the dead. Probably. Or, at least, it's not unreasonable to believe that he did (or that he turned water into wine and walked on water). Liberal Christianity says the love of Jesus is the only way to Heaven--but if some people don't believe that, it's fine to let their deluded souls go off to Hell without even trying to stop them. Or maybe Heaven and Hell don't exist at all--but it's still very, very important to praise this figure called "God." For some reason.
Liberal Christianity wants to drink the Kool-Aid but pretend there's no cyanide in it.
Amen brother.
The biggest division on the panel was not between Moore and me, however. I think that fundies believe crazy things, but I acknowledge that once you step into their fantasy world where a hateful, disturbed god wrote a book called the Holy Bible, the hateful, disturbed conclusions of Christian fundamentalists do make some kind of internal sense.
Liberal Christianity, despite being non-hateful and on many issues even ethical, is hopelessly incoherent, however. Liberal Christianity says a perfect God wrote a perfect book--but he made mistakes. Or, alternately, liberal Christianity says the book is an extremely flawed and even disgusting work written by men--but special attention should still be paid to it. Liberal Christianity says religion shouldn't stand in the way of science--but a dead man did really rise from the dead. Probably. Or, at least, it's not unreasonable to believe that he did (or that he turned water into wine and walked on water). Liberal Christianity says the love of Jesus is the only way to Heaven--but if some people don't believe that, it's fine to let their deluded souls go off to Hell without even trying to stop them. Or maybe Heaven and Hell don't exist at all--but it's still very, very important to praise this figure called "God." For some reason.
Liberal Christianity wants to drink the Kool-Aid but pretend there's no cyanide in it.
Amen brother.
Someone Is To Blame
From the Touchstone Magazine blog:
What I find interesting, though, has been the instant, reflexive resort to the belief, and accusation, that SOMEONE IS TO BLAME for this. Someone can and must be held accountable for this vast calamity. This, it seems to me, is a powerful confirmation of something that I have argued in the pages of Touchstone before: that the increase in our mastery over the physical terms of our existence will not make us happier or more content, and may even lead to chronic political and social instability and unease, precisely because of the unsatisfiable expectations it generates.
It has often been argued that an individual's attraction to conspiracy theories, far from being a sign of irrationality, is a sign of hyperrationality, of an insistence that great events in the world cannot ever proceed by chance or without human direction. The historian Gordon Wood wrote a brilliant essay a number of years ago, arguing that "the paranoid style" in politics was partly a product of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, with their insistence upon the rational intelligibility and orderliness of events, and upon the human ability to exercise control over them.
It is not so farfetched an idea, though I would place it in a continuum with the practice of magic and other prerational antecedents, including most pagan and animistic religions, which have similar aims. It is quite natural for us humans to wish to control events, and control our world---and natural to believe that, if we are not in control, someone else is. There may even be an element of the scapegoat mechanism, as described by Rene Girard, operating in such matters, reestablishing social order by displacing the sins of the community onto a sacrificial head.
Yet I cannot recall a case quite like this one, in which the tacit assumption was made so widely, so angrily and self-righteously, and so completely implausibly, that the destructive effects of this enormous storm could be, and should have been, prevented---or if not entirely prevented, at least greatly mitigated. If one were today rewriting Candide, the mocked Pangloss figure would be the one who says, "Well, these things happen, and one should learn to accept them gracefully. Although we cannot control our world, we can at least strive to do our best, and understand that there are risks in living below sea level in a hurricane-prone region." And he would be ridden out of town on a rail, by an angry mob. The extension of our power means an extension of our culpability. (Which in practice means that competing groups will be searching for ways to transfer exclusive culpability to one another, one of the reasons why the competition for "victim" status can be so intense in our culture, since being a victim is the surest way to certify one's right to offload one's culpability. We are seeing some of this in the aftermath of Katrina.)
Again, I make no particular judgments about this particular event. We will know more about what really happened in a few weeks or so. But many people will not care about the specifics; the important thing will be that SOMEONE IS TO BLAME. This points to an increasingly familiar pattern of expectation, which only grows as our scientific knowledge and technological wizardry grow. It parallels our society's growing rage at a medical system, including the pharmaceutical industry, that has been remarkably skillful, and more skillful in each passing year, in successfully addressing a range of diseases and conditions that were formerly thought to be untreatable. But modern medicine cannot banish the existence of risk. Which is why the system is all too often a casualty of the very expectations it raises. There is a sense in which, the more things become mastered, the more intolerable are those remaining areas in which our mastery is not yet complete. This parallels very neatly the observation made by Tocqueville that times of revolutionary upheaval occur when social expectations are rising, and that the growth of social equality in America would exacerbate, rather than relieve, Americans' sense of class injury and class resentment. This is less of a paradox than it seems at first glance.
I'm not predicting a revolution. Nor am I counseling fatalism or Gelassenheit. But I do think we would do well to recognize that much of the intense and free-floating anger and unhappiness that pervade so much of our prosperous world may derive precisely from the expectations that our successes in mastering our physical environment have generated. The effects of the hurricane would be much easier to live with, were we not so intent upon convincing ourselves that some human culprits caused it. We might want to pause and reflect upon how little mastery we really have---least of all, of ourselves.
What I find interesting, though, has been the instant, reflexive resort to the belief, and accusation, that SOMEONE IS TO BLAME for this. Someone can and must be held accountable for this vast calamity. This, it seems to me, is a powerful confirmation of something that I have argued in the pages of Touchstone before: that the increase in our mastery over the physical terms of our existence will not make us happier or more content, and may even lead to chronic political and social instability and unease, precisely because of the unsatisfiable expectations it generates.
It has often been argued that an individual's attraction to conspiracy theories, far from being a sign of irrationality, is a sign of hyperrationality, of an insistence that great events in the world cannot ever proceed by chance or without human direction. The historian Gordon Wood wrote a brilliant essay a number of years ago, arguing that "the paranoid style" in politics was partly a product of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, with their insistence upon the rational intelligibility and orderliness of events, and upon the human ability to exercise control over them.
It is not so farfetched an idea, though I would place it in a continuum with the practice of magic and other prerational antecedents, including most pagan and animistic religions, which have similar aims. It is quite natural for us humans to wish to control events, and control our world---and natural to believe that, if we are not in control, someone else is. There may even be an element of the scapegoat mechanism, as described by Rene Girard, operating in such matters, reestablishing social order by displacing the sins of the community onto a sacrificial head.
Yet I cannot recall a case quite like this one, in which the tacit assumption was made so widely, so angrily and self-righteously, and so completely implausibly, that the destructive effects of this enormous storm could be, and should have been, prevented---or if not entirely prevented, at least greatly mitigated. If one were today rewriting Candide, the mocked Pangloss figure would be the one who says, "Well, these things happen, and one should learn to accept them gracefully. Although we cannot control our world, we can at least strive to do our best, and understand that there are risks in living below sea level in a hurricane-prone region." And he would be ridden out of town on a rail, by an angry mob. The extension of our power means an extension of our culpability. (Which in practice means that competing groups will be searching for ways to transfer exclusive culpability to one another, one of the reasons why the competition for "victim" status can be so intense in our culture, since being a victim is the surest way to certify one's right to offload one's culpability. We are seeing some of this in the aftermath of Katrina.)
Again, I make no particular judgments about this particular event. We will know more about what really happened in a few weeks or so. But many people will not care about the specifics; the important thing will be that SOMEONE IS TO BLAME. This points to an increasingly familiar pattern of expectation, which only grows as our scientific knowledge and technological wizardry grow. It parallels our society's growing rage at a medical system, including the pharmaceutical industry, that has been remarkably skillful, and more skillful in each passing year, in successfully addressing a range of diseases and conditions that were formerly thought to be untreatable. But modern medicine cannot banish the existence of risk. Which is why the system is all too often a casualty of the very expectations it raises. There is a sense in which, the more things become mastered, the more intolerable are those remaining areas in which our mastery is not yet complete. This parallels very neatly the observation made by Tocqueville that times of revolutionary upheaval occur when social expectations are rising, and that the growth of social equality in America would exacerbate, rather than relieve, Americans' sense of class injury and class resentment. This is less of a paradox than it seems at first glance.
I'm not predicting a revolution. Nor am I counseling fatalism or Gelassenheit. But I do think we would do well to recognize that much of the intense and free-floating anger and unhappiness that pervade so much of our prosperous world may derive precisely from the expectations that our successes in mastering our physical environment have generated. The effects of the hurricane would be much easier to live with, were we not so intent upon convincing ourselves that some human culprits caused it. We might want to pause and reflect upon how little mastery we really have---least of all, of ourselves.
My Thoughts Exactly
From Max Boot:
SOMETIMES I HAVE a strong urge to resign in disgust from the Amalgamated Federation of Pollsters, Pundits, Politicians and Pompous Pontificators. This is one of those times.
No sooner had Hurricane Katrina roared through Louisiana and adjacent states than every blockhead with a microphone or a word processor felt compelled to spout off about What It All Means — and, more important, Who Is to Blame. . . .
Ordinary people are sitting at home, transfixed by the spectacle unfolding on their television screens. Their hearts are breaking as they watch the horrifying spectacle of an entire city drowned. Many have already contributed what they can to the American Red Cross, to the Salvation Army, to the other armies of compassion, and only wish they could do more.
What must they think of the talking heads who treat this as if it were another bit of minor grist for the political mills? As if this were another story about some politician's war record or a nominee's nanny issues. The callowness now on display goes a long way toward explaining why politicians and the media are held in public esteem somewhere above child molesters and below bankers.
SOMETIMES I HAVE a strong urge to resign in disgust from the Amalgamated Federation of Pollsters, Pundits, Politicians and Pompous Pontificators. This is one of those times.
No sooner had Hurricane Katrina roared through Louisiana and adjacent states than every blockhead with a microphone or a word processor felt compelled to spout off about What It All Means — and, more important, Who Is to Blame. . . .
Ordinary people are sitting at home, transfixed by the spectacle unfolding on their television screens. Their hearts are breaking as they watch the horrifying spectacle of an entire city drowned. Many have already contributed what they can to the American Red Cross, to the Salvation Army, to the other armies of compassion, and only wish they could do more.
What must they think of the talking heads who treat this as if it were another bit of minor grist for the political mills? As if this were another story about some politician's war record or a nominee's nanny issues. The callowness now on display goes a long way toward explaining why politicians and the media are held in public esteem somewhere above child molesters and below bankers.
This Guy's Got to Go
The government's disaster chief waited until hours after Hurricane Katrina had already struck the Gulf Coast before asking his boss to dispatch 1,000 Homeland Security employees to the region _ and gave them two days to arrive, according to internal documents.
Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, sought the approval from Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff roughly five hours after Katrina made landfall on Aug. 29. Brown said that among duties of these employees was to "convey a positive image" about the government's response for victims. Before then, FEMA had positioned smaller rescue and communications teams across the Gulf Coast.
But officials acknowledged Tuesday the first department-wide appeal for help came only as the storm raged....
Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, sought the approval from Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff roughly five hours after Katrina made landfall on Aug. 29. Brown said that among duties of these employees was to "convey a positive image" about the government's response for victims. Before then, FEMA had positioned smaller rescue and communications teams across the Gulf Coast.
But officials acknowledged Tuesday the first department-wide appeal for help came only as the storm raged....
The African-American Jihadists...and I Don't Mean Jesse Jackson
These sound like nice chaps:
The Jewish High Holidays this year fall in early October, and that's when a massacre was planned against two Los Angeles synagogues, as well as other targets, according to an indictment just handed down against four young Muslim men.
Law enforcement traces the origins of this plot to 1997. That's when Kevin Lamar James, a black inmate at New Folsom Prison, near Sacramento, Calif., founded Jam'iyyat Ul-Islam Is-Saheeh (Arabic for "Assembly of Authentic Islam" and known as JIS). JIS promotes the sort of jihadi version of Islam typically found in American prisons As the indictment puts it, James, now 29, preached that JIS members have the duty "to target for violent attack any enemies of Islam or ‘infidels,' including the United States government and Jewish and non-Jewish supporters of Israel."
James, serving a 10-year prison sentence for an armed robbery in 1996, recruited acolytes among fellow inmates Volunteers swore to obey him and not to disclose the existence of JIS. On release from prison, they promised to get directives from him at least every three months, recruit Muslims to JIS, and attack government officials and supporters of Israel.
Levar Haney Washington, 25, allegedly joined the JIS and swore allegiance to James just before being released from New Folsom in November 2004, having served his six-year sentence for a 1999 assault and robbery. On getting out, Washington immediately began recruiting at his mosque, Jamat-E-Masijidul Islam in the Los Angeles area. "He regarded Osama bin Laden very highly," reported one person whom Washington tried to recruit.
Two men, both 21 years old and without criminal records, did sign up: a lawful Pakistani immigrant and student at Santa Monica College, Hammad Riaz Samana; and a black convert who had worked at a duty-free shop in Los Angeles International Airport, Gregory Vernon Patterson The three, plus James, now face up to life in prison for conspiring "to levy a war against the Government of the United States through terrorism."
They did so in five ways. They conducted surveillance of American government targets (military recruitment stations and bases), Israeli targets (consulate in L.A. and El-Al airlines), and Jewish targets (synagogues). The trio monitored the Jewish calendar and, the indictment notes, planned to attack synagogues on Jewish holidays "to maximize the number of casualties."
They acquired an arsenal of weapons. To fund this undertaking, they set off on a crime wave, robbing (or attempting to rob) gas stations 11 times in the five weeks after May 30. They engaged in physical and firearms training. Finally, they tried recruiting other Muslims.
But Patterson dropped a mobile telephone during the course of one gas station robbery, and the police retrieved it. Information from the phone set off an FBI-led investigation that involved more than 25 agencies and 500 investigators. The police staked out Patterson and Washington, arresting them after they robbed a Chevron station on July 5. Washington's apartment turned up bulletproof vests, knives, jihad literature, and the addresses of potential targets. Patterson was waiting to acquire an AR-15 assault rifle.
The Jewish High Holidays this year fall in early October, and that's when a massacre was planned against two Los Angeles synagogues, as well as other targets, according to an indictment just handed down against four young Muslim men.
Law enforcement traces the origins of this plot to 1997. That's when Kevin Lamar James, a black inmate at New Folsom Prison, near Sacramento, Calif., founded Jam'iyyat Ul-Islam Is-Saheeh (Arabic for "Assembly of Authentic Islam" and known as JIS). JIS promotes the sort of jihadi version of Islam typically found in American prisons As the indictment puts it, James, now 29, preached that JIS members have the duty "to target for violent attack any enemies of Islam or ‘infidels,' including the United States government and Jewish and non-Jewish supporters of Israel."
James, serving a 10-year prison sentence for an armed robbery in 1996, recruited acolytes among fellow inmates Volunteers swore to obey him and not to disclose the existence of JIS. On release from prison, they promised to get directives from him at least every three months, recruit Muslims to JIS, and attack government officials and supporters of Israel.
Levar Haney Washington, 25, allegedly joined the JIS and swore allegiance to James just before being released from New Folsom in November 2004, having served his six-year sentence for a 1999 assault and robbery. On getting out, Washington immediately began recruiting at his mosque, Jamat-E-Masijidul Islam in the Los Angeles area. "He regarded Osama bin Laden very highly," reported one person whom Washington tried to recruit.
Two men, both 21 years old and without criminal records, did sign up: a lawful Pakistani immigrant and student at Santa Monica College, Hammad Riaz Samana; and a black convert who had worked at a duty-free shop in Los Angeles International Airport, Gregory Vernon Patterson The three, plus James, now face up to life in prison for conspiring "to levy a war against the Government of the United States through terrorism."
They did so in five ways. They conducted surveillance of American government targets (military recruitment stations and bases), Israeli targets (consulate in L.A. and El-Al airlines), and Jewish targets (synagogues). The trio monitored the Jewish calendar and, the indictment notes, planned to attack synagogues on Jewish holidays "to maximize the number of casualties."
They acquired an arsenal of weapons. To fund this undertaking, they set off on a crime wave, robbing (or attempting to rob) gas stations 11 times in the five weeks after May 30. They engaged in physical and firearms training. Finally, they tried recruiting other Muslims.
But Patterson dropped a mobile telephone during the course of one gas station robbery, and the police retrieved it. Information from the phone set off an FBI-led investigation that involved more than 25 agencies and 500 investigators. The police staked out Patterson and Washington, arresting them after they robbed a Chevron station on July 5. Washington's apartment turned up bulletproof vests, knives, jihad literature, and the addresses of potential targets. Patterson was waiting to acquire an AR-15 assault rifle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
