MO/KAN Helps Out

I'm finding it hard to blog about Katrina. It's so overwhelming that I just don't know what to say. So I'll start with some of the local relief efforts. Here are some of the things being done in the Missouri/Kansas area to help out Katrina survivors:

31 injured children from New Orleans are being flown by the Missouri National Guard to Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City. Update: More here.

University of Kansas will admit students displaced by the hurricane.

Missouri National Guard Mobilizing 180 Military Police to send to the Gulf Coast.

Kansas City TV Station raises over $200,000 for The Red Cross. Update: $412,000.

War Reporting For Cowards

Morning Edition just had an amusing story about Chris Ayres, a British journalist who ended up being embedded with the Marines for the invasion of Iraq with almost no idea what he was doing or what he was in for. He's written a book, War Reporting for Cowards.

The story was funny and, as a fellow devoted indoorsman, I sympathize with his ordeal. But I wonder when Morning Edition will be doing a story on war reporting for non-cowards.

The City in a Bowl

I'm beginning to regret that I've never been to New Orleans. There's a good chance it will never be the same after Katrina. A few years back I saw an episode of NOW, The City in a Bowl, on this exact senario. A hurricane direct hit on New Orleans wouldn't even have to be a category 5 to cause enormous damage From the transcript:

DANIEL ZWERDLING: Maestri says, imagine what happens if a hurricane like Andrew comes raging up from the Gulf:

WALTER MAESTRI: The hurricane is spinning counter-clockwise. It's been pushing in front of it water from the Gulf of Mexico for days. It's now got a wall of water in front of it some 30, 40 feet high. As it approaches the levies of the-- the-- that surround the city, it tops those levees. As the storm continues to pass over. Now Lake Ponchetrain, that water from Lake Ponchartrain is now pushed on to that - those population which has been fleeing from the western side and everybody's caught in the middle. The bowl now completely fills. And we've now got the entire community underwater some 20, 30 feet underwater. Everything is lost.

DANIEL ZWERDLING: Remember the levees which the Army built, to hold smaller floods out of the bowl? Maestri says now those levees would doom the city. Because they'd trap the water in.

WALTER MAESTRI: It's going to look like a massive shipwreck. There's going to be-- there's going to be, you know-- everything that that the water has carried in is going to be there. Alligators, moccasins, you know every kind of rodent that you could think of.

All of your sewage treatment plants are under water. And of course the material is flowing free in the community. Disease becomes a distinct possibility now. The petrochemicals that are produced all up and down the Mississippi River --much of that has floated into this bowl. I mean this has become, you know, the biggest toxic waste dump in the world now. Is the city of New Orleans because of what has happened.

Perhaps the silver lining is that Katrina is so big and so threatening that fewer people than usual are trying to ride it out.

Update: Don't miss Brendan Loy's site if you want hurricane news. This self-proclaimed amatuer weather enthusiast is going to be up all night.

Hitchens on Iraq

Lots of good stuff in this Christopher Hitchens piece, such as:

THERE IS, first, the problem of humorless and pseudo-legalistic literalism. In Saki's short story The Lumber Room, the naughty but clever child Nicholas, who has actually placed a frog in his morning bread-and-milk, rejoices in his triumph over the adults who don't credit this excuse for not eating his healthful dish:

"You said there couldn't possibly be a frog in my bread-and-milk; there was a frog in my bread-and-milk," he repeated, with the insistence of a skilled tactician who does not intend to shift from favorable ground.

Childishness is one thing--those of us who grew up on this wonderful Edwardian author were always happy to see the grown-ups and governesses discomfited. But puerility in adults is quite another thing, and considerably less charming. "You said there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam had friends in al Qaeda. . . . Blah, blah, pants on fire." I have had many opportunities to tire of this mantra. It takes ten seconds to intone the said mantra. It would take me, on my most eloquent C-SPAN day, at the very least five minutes to say that Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad; that Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of Qusay Hussein; that Saddam's agents were in Damascus as late as February 2003, negotiating to purchase missiles off the shelf from North Korea; or that Rolf Ekeus, the great Swedish socialist who founded the inspection process in Iraq after 1991, has told me for the record that he was offered a $2 million bribe in a face-to-face meeting with Tariq Aziz. And these eye-catching examples would by no means exhaust my repertoire, or empty my quiver. Yes, it must be admitted that Bush and Blair made a hash of a good case, largely because they preferred to scare people rather than enlighten them or reason with them. Still, the only real strategy of deception has come from those who believe, or pretend, that Saddam Hussein was no problem.

Childish: That's how I'd describe most of the anti-war movement. Inarticulate: That's how I'd describe the Bush Administration's response to it's critics. Luckily, we've got folks like Hitchens to sort it all out. (via LGF)

Here's an Idea

Jimmie at The Sundries Shack wonders why there is no weekly war news show with in-depth stories about what our soldiers are really doing on the ground in Iraq, especially the good news.

I agree there is a market for this type of show. Typical new stories on Iraq are boring for anyone who keeps up on the war at all because they're so superficial. As I type, NBC News is doing an "in-depth" piece on... Cindy Sheehan. Again. This "in-depth" piece ran about 3 minutes.

I think a show that had a weekly feature on some of the cool high-tech whatzits the military is using would attract viewers. Some of that stuff is seriously sci-fi.

But I suspect it's not lack of audience interest, but a lack of reporter/producer interest that keeps a show like this from developing. First, reporters are notorious for messing up military stories due to total ignorance of things military. Doing an intelligent show on a regular basis would be hard. Second, there is such a stigma against being seen to be in the Bush's pocket, I can't see any network except Fox doing this.

Ultimately, I think stories like Captain Brian Chontosh's single-handed destruction of the enemy would be quite popular. Which is why the MSM doesn't do them. Most media types (to the extent that they are liberals) frown on violence and see it as their duty to save us from our unseemly jingoistic impulses. Telling hero stories would lead to viewers being pleased that people had died. How Yucky. Cool high-tech weapons? Aren't' those for killing people? Also Yucky.

I'd almost rather they didn't try it. Best case senario: They turn it into some tacky Cops thing.

Mistaken Identity

Apparently, Kansas Senator Pat Roberts is getting a little feedback (positive and negative) from people who mistake him for Pat Robertson. He was just on the radio telling the story of a women who told him he was doing the Lord's work and wondered why he looked so different on TV. Other people call his office to chew him out for all the crazy things Pat Robertson says. That must be truly annoying.

Where Communism Really Excels

Don't miss Verifrank demonstrating where communists really out do capitalists.

School Starts Tomorrow

I guess that's why I haven't been blogging. I've been keeping up with other blogs, but my extra brain power is thinking about Mia. She'll graduate from the great preschool program she's in this year. She's slated to go to kindergarten at our less-than-reputable local elementary school. I doubt that will happen. So, I've tracked down the local Montessori schools with elementary programs and will check those out in the fall.

We also have to decide whether to chase around to more doctors trying to find a diagnosis. I just discovered the term "hyperlexia". It's sometimes applied to kids who begin to read precociously and spontaneously (no mom with flashcards) yet have a language disorder and some autistic behaviors, but not enough to be diagnosis with autism. 90% of these kids are boys, but other that, it sounds like Mia. Of course, little of the great diagnosis chase is covered by insurance, so the pursuit is expensive. On the other hand, a diagnosis could be helpful in dealing with the school district. Decisions, decisions.

Sharon Calls the World's Bluff

More insight from David Frum, this time on the Israeli withdrawl from Gaza:

In Charles Dickens’ novel David Copperfield there is a character who answers every request with a sigh: Ah, if it were up to him, he would of course say “yes” with pleasure – but his partner, Mr. Jorrocks,* is so very difficult ….. In just such a way, European and American political leaders favor a “peace process” that moves the Palestinians ever closer to statehood, without ever quite reaching it; a process that positions the Israelis as the Mr. Jorrocks of the world.

Ariel Sharon has decided to put an end to this play.

Lileks attacks the First Amendment...

by having an opinion. Here's more on the Freedom of Speech defense:

Might as well get it out of the way: This is a cruel, false, chicken-hearted attempt to smear Cindy Sheehan, the protesting mother who lost a son in Iraq.

That's not the intent, but that's how some will respond. Some people think that any time you argue back, you're Stifling Dissent. For them, merely discussing Ms. Sheehan's views is the rhetorical equivalent of sending her to Abu Ghraib.

(Via Instapundit)

Update: While we're on the subject of Lileks, don't miss his take down of the Presbyterian Church (USA) for divesting from Israel:

But they're not anti-Semites. Heavens, nay. Don't you dare question their philosemitism! No, they looked at the entire world, including countries that lop off your skull if you convert to Presbyterianism, and what did they choose as the object of their ire? A country the size of a potato chip hanging on the edge of a region noted for despotism and barbarity. By some peculiar coincidence, it happens to be full of Jews.

Col. Shaffer Speaks

Col. Shaffer was just on Talk of the Nation, sounding credible and offering explainations to a lot of the questions that were asked about his story yesterday. The show should be available here this evening.

Update: Jim Geraghty has the main points right now.

"Freedom of Speech, Baby"

Jonah Goldberg addresses one of my pet peeves today. His peg is a quote from Dan Savage, guest blogging at Andrew Sullivan's site:

I'm all for what she's trying to do. Yes, she appears to be — say it ain't so! — slightly partisan. But since when does being slightly partisan disqualify someone from having an opinion? Rightwing bloggers would have us believe that, unless you're a Republican (and an R who supports the war, no questions asked), you have no right to speak out about the war.

I knew instantly where he was going. This "freedom of speech" defense is the biggest red herring going and it is ubiquitous. Most rightwing bloggers aren't saying she can't say what she's saying. They're saying what she's saying is wrong. They're addressing her arguments with more arguments and they're met with an army of straw men.

Or as Jonah puts it:

But, if you want to defend somebody's controversial statements, saying "so-and-so has the right to his opinion" doesn't get you out of the gate. It just sucks up air and fills space. Intellectually, it's got the nutritional value of Styrofoam. You might as well say "Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah, ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang" instead and then move on to your next point. It's not interesting, not smart, not insightful. Saying Cindy Sheehan has a right to criticize the president is like saying she's a carbon-based life form: True, but utterly beside the point.

I think Jonah hits on why this is so annoying:

I mean, if you immediately assert that someone has the right to say something as a way to rebut criticism, aren't you implying that such criticism violated their rights — which is, by definition, unconstitutional.

The paranoia enters into it when you consider the nature of the accusation. If you immediately assume that criticism from the political Right is tantamount to questioning someone's constitutional right to speak in the first place, what you are really saying (Pace Dan Savage) is that if you scratch a conservative you'll find a Storm Trooper just under the surface.

When I meet this "argument", I always assume the person wishes to change the subject, since the statement is non-responsive, the conversation equivalent of putting one's hands over one's ears and singing "La, la, la, I can't hear you."

Update: Spoons comments:

You have a right to your opinion...But to actually say so, and to pretend that that is a substantive argument, is asinine.

Jonah's G-File should be read to every high school student on his first day of civics class, and every new college student on the first day of Freshman orientation.

Schroeder's Ace in the Hole: George Bush

It's election time in Germany again and Ray and David are shocked, shocked to see Schroeder sucking up to Iran and playing the anti-American card. Are Germans going to fall for that again? Soon we'll find out if they dislike George Bush more that they dislike double-digit unemployment and a stagnant economy.

Bill Spricht also has a good post on how sad it is to see our sometime ally working against us with such fervor:

Let’s be frank: when it’s campaign season in Germany, dictators the world over smile with joy as the German chancellor assures them that they are safe.

Fake tattoos and the War On Drugs

If you've got young kids, you probably have some experience with fake tattoos. Mia just got some at a fish hatchery we visited while we were on vacation. These tattoos were around when I was a kid, but I never got one because when I was in jr. high (almost 25 years ago), they were banned from school. In fact, the school sent letters home warning of the threat posed by these little novelties. The danger: the tattoos could actually be a hit of acid. Seriously.

In light of the recent moves to restrict the purchase of cold and allergy medications containing pseudoephedrine, I would like to point out that while 20 years ago the drug scare de jour was banned from my school, today The Missouri Department of Conservation prints them up and hands them out to 4 year olds.

I realize that Meth is a very bad news. I live in Missouri after all, where 2,788 meth labs were busted in 2004 alone. But at some point it becomes a case of banning steak knives to stop stabbings. I fear we are nearing that point. Frankly, I would give up my cold medicine in a heart beat if I thought it would stop people from destroying their lives with drugs. But it won't. There was a story on the local news last week about kids choking each other to get the high that allegedly comes from stopping the flow of oxygen to the brain. I don't appreciate giving up rights, or even be inconvenienced, over these inhabitants of the shallow end of the gene pool who will skate around these regulations without missing a beat. As with the tattoos, in a few years we'll be wondering what all the fuss was about since now everyone's sniffing (insert household product here).

Update: Here's an article on the chokers.

Whoo hoo! I'm a Slimy Mollusc

So curiosity finally got the better of me and I joined the TTLB ecosystem. Given my anti-social tendencies, I was pleased to see I've evolved to mollusc. I've done next to nothing to promote my blog, yet a few folks have found me. I love the blogosphere.

Coup Narrowly Averted

Via The English Professor, I heard about the case of Four-star general Kevin Byrnes, who has been relieved of his command, apparently for adultery. Well, I thought I'd google a little to find out more about this. That's when I stumbled upon The Truth (secure tinfoil hat before clicking through). Byrnes was, in fact, " the leader of a faction that was preparing to instigate a coup against the neo-con hawks in an attempt to prevent further global conflict." And/or he stumbled upon the neo-con plan to launch a false-flag nuclear attack within the United States so they could declare martial law and attack Iran. Apparently, the shock of the neo-con-staged 9/11 attacks wasn't strong enough to override Americans' attachment to the constitution, so this time, they're going nuclear.

Well, now that we've got that cleared up, let's take a moment to be amazed at the organizational skills of the far-left. Do you think they have flow charts mapping all this out? It's impressive in a paranoid sort of way. No matter what happens next, they've already blamed Bush.

If It Wasn't for Iraq and Israel...

then Islamists would have to find another reason to attack us. I doubt they'd find that much of a challenge.

Ed Morrissey writes in the Weekly Standard that a certain Mohammed Afroze was recently sentenced by a Indian court "...to seven years in prison for his participation in a wider plot which had been planned for September 11, 2001. Afroze led another al Qaeda cell which planned to use commercial airlines as missiles to destroy several international targets."

That seems significant, especially given the targets: London (naturally), Australia (okay, I guess) and India(?). As Morrissey points out, India opposed the invasion of Iraq and routinely sides with the Palestinians. So maybe Iraq and Israel are excuses for rather than reasons for Islamist aggression. Just what the right has been saying since 9/11.

(via The Anchoress)

The Trouble With Burqas

David Frum has an interesting post on whether a free society can ban the burqa. I think his answer is that it can and it should. He points out that, as much as some shrug and say "If they want to wear it, why not?", the demand is not a libertarian one:

And once the extremists have forced their own wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters into the garments of slavery, they can then turn to other women in the Muslim communities of Europe and ask: “What about you?”

And this is exactly what is happening and what has happened in schools and neighborhoods where extremist Muslims live.

He also notes:

Nor is the burqa a threat to women of Muslim background alone.

Already we hear complaints from Mulims in the West – and not only from violent extremists – about the “immodesty” of women here. Already there are apologists who suggest that perhaps we can learn from Islam not to objectify women sexually. Already there are officials hinting that social order would be assisted if women would follow a few simple precautions ….

Makes you wonder about that EU directive banning Bavarian barmaids' lowcut dresses to protect them from the... sun, yeah that's it, the sun.

Underage Drinking

Michael Totten, guest blogging at Instapundit, links approvingly to this Radley Balko op/ed on the folly of zero tolerance for underage drinking. Specifically, he's against prosecuting parents for throwing supervised drinking parties for their children's friends, on the grounds that the kids would be drinking anyway.

I suppose there is some logic to that, but I wonder if he's thought through all the implications of allowing adults to give alcohol minors.

For example, does he accept any minimum age for engaging in adult activities? One of the sets of parents we're supposed to feel sorry for served beer at their kid's 16th birthday party. I would be surprised if all the guests had already turned 16. I was 13 when I started high school. I had friends and cousins that were older than me. Should I have been served a beer at one of their parties? Two beers? Beers 'till I puked? Where would Mr. Balko draw the line?

As a parent, I would want to know my legal responsibilities for these minors. Is that father stationed at the door with the car keys also making sure that the kids don't get hurt or have sex if they're underage? Is he legally responsible if they do?

In this op/ed, all the adults are parents trying to be responsible by buying alcohol for parties full of kids. But what happens when adults start having parties and inviting kids as guests? We just had an ugly statutory rape case in Lawrence where a 13 years old went to just such a party. The mom of one of the rapists was asleep in the next room. But the kicker, and the thing that worries me the most, was that the judge treated the fact that these adults had given alcohol to this 13 year old as a mitigating factor. Instead of being horrified that they had gotten a child drunk and raped her, the judge seems to feel that it is unfortunate she has to sentence these poor men at all (they got 60 days plus probation) on account of that drunken little slut (I paraphrase). I bring this up as an example of the current trend towards treating ever younger children as if they were just short adults.

I guess, my problem with this op/ed is two-fold. First, he's advocating giving children adult privileges (and thereby responsibilities) that, let's face it, not even all adults can handle, just because they want them. I'm sure that 13 year old from Lawrence felt that she was mature enough to do whatever she wanted to do. She knows better now. I know kids aren't always open to learning from the experience of their elders, but does that me we should stop trying to teach them? Maybe we should also encourage kids to obey the law and not break it.

Which brings me to my second concern. He's mocking the police for enforcing the law, suggesting they have better things to do. Perhaps they do. If that's the case, Mr. Balko should be discussing a revision of the law with his state representatives, not cavalierly suggesting the police just look the other way . I'd feel better about this op/ed if it contained some constructive suggestions for a new law which would address some of the problems I've outlined above.

Allah Sighting

Allah formerly of Allah Is In The House, occasionally posts here. Very occasionally, which is why I just noticed this post on the whole "Bomb Mecca" dust-up:

When the Bomb goes off in New York City, the last thought that passes through my mind before the fireball consumes me will be, "You know, I hope we don't bomb Mecca. I wouldn't want this war to get out of hand."

Reminding me why his dead link is still on my blogroll.

Careful what you wish for

Intellectually, I know that the editors of USA Today are not demanding that Bush nuke something, but check out this editorial. The topic is Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the point seems to be that, as terrible as it was for the inhabitants of the targeted cities, the bomb ended the war and saved lives. But here's the conclusion:

Truman will be remembered as the president who brought us both victory and peace in a war that was justified and necessary. By contrast, self-proclaimed “War President” George Bush has brought us neither victory nor peace in the Iraq war, which former president Jimmy Carter this week called “unnecessary and unjust.”

LGF highlights this quote for its bias against Bush, but something else jumped out at me. The editorial itself points out that Truman "brought us both victory and peace" by dropping not one, but two nuclear bombs on civilian populations. Then they compare Bush unfavorably with Truman. So if Bush wanted to follow USA Today's advice to be more Truman-like and bring us a quick victory he should.... Hmmm, did they really think this one through?

I'm back...

...from a frenzy of relative-visiting. I met my sister and a couple of her kids in St. Louis, stopped by the house for a day, then promptly went to visit my mom. I must say, I'm pretty impressed with all the fun things to do in St. Louis. We made the obligatory trip to the zoo, but we also hit the Science Center, The Arch, and The Museum of Transportation (filled to the brim with Mia's favorite thing on earth - trains). There was lots more we didn't have time (or energy) to see.

Anyway, I haven't been on the internet or really even watched the news for over a week. I'll get back to it after I've recovered from all this vacationing.