Long Overdue Photos

Now that I can upload photos, here are a couple.

Bill Moyer, 73, wears a "Bullshit Protector" flap over his ear while President George W. Bush addresses the Veterans of Foreign Wars at their 106th convention Monday, Aug. 22, 2005, in Salt Lake City. Moyer served in Korea and Vietnam, and in the post- WWII occupation of Germany. (AP Photo/Douglas C. Pizac)

This one just says it all:

On Private vs. Govt. Assistance

From Ernest, in response to this article I sent him, entitled Charities are for Suckers by Ted Rall:
http://tinyurl.com/ankc5
I don't get it. Why is it necessarily the fed governments responsibility to pay for everything? First of all, I thought the gov just allocated 60 billion dollars towards relief. So the claim "because the government refuses to help them" is just as much of an exaggeration as the comparison of Katrina to the holocaust ("...levee break that turned Katrina into a holocaust").

So anytime someone has a personal tradegy, the government is supposed to pay money to people? That means they have to make decisions about defining what's a tragedy and what's not. If someone's parent dies in a car accident, or from cancer, is the gov supposed to pay the family? If they don't, they're implicitly saying the loss of a parent isn't as bad as losing a house in New Orleans. "The U.S. government can easily pick up the tab for people inconvenienced by bad weather" You really think it's wise for the gov to dish out money to people everytime they're "inconvenienced?" If it's -60 in Fargo, is it the gov responsibility to buy me a heater so I don't freeze to death? I prefer that they spend money on national security, health care, and education. Not that they shouldn't spend money on citizens or relief efforts, or tax the super rich heavily, but the gov shouldn't be soley responsible for "dishing out money" everytime someone suffers or is incovenienced. The debt is bad enough. I think Ted Rall is a sucker, so it's surprising to me that he's not in favor of charities.

My response to Ernest:
I don't think anyone is suggesting the government pay for personal tragedies. I think there is a stark difference between a parent dying and a city being destroyed -- a city built around this country's most important port, a city which has been physically weakened over the years because of its necessity as a port. The environmental damage to the delta that allowed the full brunt of the storm to hit was a direct result of the commerce and trade up and down the Mississipp River, all of which reaped taxes to the government and profits to the wealthy. The government, in turn, allegedly has not done what has been necessary to protect that enterprise through levee reinforcement, environmental protection, tackling political corruption, etc.

So from a purely corporate standpoint, it is in the interest of government to protect and rebuild New Orleans. So why should the government "dish out money" to the people who lived there? Because the people of the city are a big part of what makes the city in the first place. You can't rebuild the port and the infrastucture and leave the people to flounder. This is, believe it or not, a civilization, a society. There is a distinct responsibility of a society to take care of its people. Only recently has the US government bent over backwards to thwart that responsibility. Even in a monarchy it was the responsibility of the King to take care of his subjects. We booted the monarchy in favor of something better. It IS the responsibility of our government to take care of us when we cannot take care or ourselves.

Somehow the line in the Declaration about the Pusuit of Happiness has evolved to mean the govts sole purpose is to protect the property of the rich.

Declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What the hell else is the government supposed to do in times like these? Spend $600 billion of OUR money destroying someone's country?"

I want to vomit

Listening to the Bushes right now is close to making me physically sick. Here is what former First Lady Barbara Bush had to say on the surge of evacuees to the Texas city:

"Almost everyone I’ve talked to wants to move to Houston."

Then she added: "What I’m hearing is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed with the hospitality.

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

When coupled with GW Bush's comments on Trent Lott's fantastic new house to be built, it is enought to make a decent person sick inside. That this family has been the leadership of our country for so long is frankly traumatic to me.

It does not matter whether Bush is to blame for the total lack of action on the part of the federal government, the fact remains that he has shown the worst kind of leadership imaginable in the wake of these events. Words escape me.

Letter to the President

Mr. President,

Do you understand yet what a complete failure your administration has been? Do you understand that your priorities are perpetually in the wrong places? Do you understand that it took an entire week to get any federal assistance into New Orleans?

Do you understand that the people of America are sick and tired of you tearing apart what we the people have spent generations building in this great country? You did not cause the hurricane; I understand that. But you are the one spending billions of dollars allegedly securing our nation.

How can you expect to protect us in the event of an attack? They do not announce those in advance like this hurricane was. What if a terrorist blew up the New Orleans levees in three places simultaneously?

Would it take a week to rescue the people of New Orleans then? Most of the city would not have not have evacuated in advance.

You say you understand. You repeat that you understand. But I don't think you understand that you have been a failure to this country. I don't even think the people of America fully understand what a failure you have been to them either.

Sincerely,

Chuck Baldwin

####
This just in. A quote from our leader:

"We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch. (Laughter.)"
-- George W. Bush, Sep 2, 2005
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050902-2.html

Wow. That is one of the most despicable things I've heard in a long time. So the storm cleaned out a lot of what was scumming it up anyway? It's going to be a better place like it was before? Like in 1850? Well, that's probably not what his words were intended to mean.

Just shut the hell up and save those lives. We're going on a week and a half of all-talk-no-action.

Listen to the Mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin. Listen to the end.
http://a901.g.akamai.net ... /Nagin.mp3

Intelligence from the Right

I heard today that Newt Gingrich said something intelligent. Here it is:

"If we can't respond faster than this to an event we saw coming across the Gulf for days, then why do we think we're prepared to respond to a nuclear or biological attack

-- from Yahoo

Bill O'Reilly even said something smart:

"America's failure to conserve energy is a disgrace and the Bush administration has done little to encourage conservation," O'Reilly said. "This country uses 25% of all the world's oil as we hop around in gas-guzzling cars and generally waste energy all day long. We have to stop that."

"There's no question in my mind that OPEC and the oil companies are gouging us simply because they can! So, let's buy less gas. In fact. let's buy no gas on Sundays. The U. S. A. should have a gas-free Sundays campaign between now and Christmas. None of us should buy gas on our day of rest."

"The oil companies and OPEC only make money only if we buy their stuff. if we cut back even 10% on energy buying, they'll get hurt. Let's all do it. If we don't, the national economy will totter and we'll all be poorer."

-- reported by Newshounds

With that kind of whining I might have to stop and join up with the Republicans.