alexshiozaki

You think Mr. Dwyer (and I) is (are?) bad for constantly using other people's articles in his (and my) blog(s)? NRO hits new levels with it's article "Crashing the Gate: The complaint against Jerome Armstrong."

After a brief Editor's note comes the following lines:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIERRA BROKERAGE SERVICES, INC., RICHARD GEIGER, JEFFREY A. RICHARDSON, AARON TSAI, MICHAEL M. MARKOW, GLOBAL GUARANTEE CORPORATION, FRANCOIS GOELO, YONGZHI YANG, K&J CONSULTING, LIMITED, KE LUO, M&M MANAGEMENT, LIMITED, JEROME B. ARMSTRONG,

Defendants.

Yes, they actually post a Supreme Court case in lieu of an article. Why I bother checking out their headlines anymore I don't know...

I don't know what's more pathetic: That every presidential candidate for the Yale student body was cited for campaign violations, or that CNN decided that this actually matters.

What's even more pathetic: The campaing violations included illegal taping flyers to their own doors--putting one candidate over the spending limit for posters (those must have been some damned expensive flyers)--and putting up a website too early.

Maybe I'll stick to DailyKos from now on.

What. The. Fuck.

As crazy as it sounds, an idiot named Ruth Malhotra went to Georgia court over tolerance. And she's not the only one. Apparently there's a "growing campaign" against policies protecting gays and lesbians against harrasment. And you know what's even more funny? The Christians think they're arguing for their civil rights.

"Christians are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian," says Reverend Rick Scarborough.

I shit you not.

These people are misunderstanding the rights set out by the First Amendment. Sure, there's freedom of religion. But that doesn't give you complete freedom. For example, you can't suppress women's rights and say that your religion calls for it. Freedom of speech, too, only goes so far. Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building.

I also find it interesting that Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor complains that he's grouped in with racists. He argues that sexual orientation is a matter of lifestyle, not genetics. I direct all those who agree with him to the book "Biological Exuberance". One thing's for certain: if you want my respect, don't even bother debating this with me. I'll just assume you're stupid. (Because you are. No offense.)

Rep. Virgil Goode of Virginia: "I say if you are here illegally and want to fly the Mexican flag, go to Mexico and wave the American flag."

Wtf? That doesn't even make sense.

Denis Boyles informs us that the American government is "routinely portray[ed]... as a baby-killer and worse" in French cartoons. Why does it sound like what the anti-choice movement portrays the pro-choice movement as? (Hey, pro-choice is accurate; pro-life is a misnomer.) Here's the full article.

On an unrelated note, I accidentally told a conservative my opinions of conservatives, thinking he was a liberal. Awkward...

I'm on my way to a violin lesson at MIT and I decide that, for once, I'm going to listen to the radio. On comes Mike Barnicle, a radio talk show host in Boston. He's debating with a Hispanic woman on the issue of illegal immigrants. This woman is a legal immigrant, but she doesn't feel entirely comfortable because she knows that there are people who would like to see what they consider to be "her kind" deported. Barnicle's response?

Barnicle: How many illegal immigrants have you seen beaten up?
Hispanic: I haven't seen any, but I still don't feel comfortable with this discussion going on.
Barnicle: How many American citizens do you see beaten up, mugged, raped by illegal immigrants?

She never had a chance to respond, and he went on for a bit about how Hispanics were drug users, living on welfare, unemployed, and criminals. And that he wasn't racist.

Actually, I've never seen someone beaten up, mugged, or raped.

A bit of background on Barnicle: He was fired by the Boston Globe after fabricating quotes and facts in his column, as well as plagiarizing a book, falsely attributed a racist quote to Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, and just made an ass of himself on the radio.

It's also funny when they accuse Bush of being leftist. And warn that the U.S. is on track to turn into Cuba.

4-D ultrasound. What exactly is it? Three dimensions I can visualize; four dimensions I can comprehend, but don't quite know how to explain. I clicked on a CNN.com video link titled Ultrasound enters the 4th dimension.

The answer? Three dimensions.

Four dimensional my ass.


If you think you can explain what they mean, feel free to post your theory.

Usually I'm simply awed by the stupidity of conservatives. At least, the stupidity of the outspoken representatives of conservatives; I don't know how many conservatives actually subscribe to their ideas.

Rarely do I actually get pissed off. Like really, really pissed off. When a guy calls into the O'Reilly Factor and expresses the opinion that perhaps San Francisco is not as out of the mainstream as O'Reilly is making it, he is immediately pounced on. I don't have a problem with this; the guy can clearly handle himself. What pissed me off came during a series of questions aimed at him by O'Reilly. One of them went along the lines of "Do you believe that the military should be banned?" The guy said simply, "I spent four years in the Marines." O'Reilly's response? "I don't care what you did."

What the fuck.

"Sexual initiation, according to their view of things, means learning to
overcome guilt and shame, to put aside our hesitations, and to enjoy
what is described in their literature (which is rapidly becoming the
literature of "sex education" in our schools) as 'good sex.'"

I don't know what secondary school Roger Scruton (digression: That's a really unfortunate name there; I'll bet he got made fun of as a kid) attended, but I'm pretty sure my school didn't offer anything of that sort during sex-ed. We did, however, learn that schools are required to promote abstinence and--more practically--what to look for in a condom. No, we did not practice putting condoms on wooden... yeah.


http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200602140942.asp

As unbelievable as it sounds, it's true.

By now we've all heard about Cindy Sheehan getting kicked out of the SOTU address for wearing a T-Shirt that stated, "2,245 Dead. How many more?" Protesting was her crime, and by protesting I mean she took off her jacket. Before the speech began. Thus completely disrupting it.

There was another protester in the crowd that night. Beverly Young, wife of a GOP congressman, was kicked out of the galley for protesting against the non-support of our troops. Her shirt angrily stated, "Support Our Troops." As you can all tell, them's fightin' words.

Oh, and in case you took the title seriously: Sheehan was handcuffed and arrested. (Contrary to reports from police, she denies being asked to remove her shirt.) Young was simply asked to leave.

Oh the joys of being Republican.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and founder of the influential Christian Broadcasting Network and Christian Coalition, has made similar apocalyptic warnings and provocative statements before.

Last summer, he hit the headlines by calling for the assassination of leftist Venezuelan Present Hugo Chavez, one of President George W. Bush's most vocal international critics.

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."

"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.

The 700 Club claims a daily audience of around one million. It is also broadcast around the world translated into more than 70 languages.

In voting on Tuesday, eight Dover, Pennsylvania, school board members up for re-election lost their seats after trying to introduce a statement on "intelligent design" to high school biology students.

Adherents of intelligent design argue that certain forms in nature are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and must have been created by a "designer." Opponents say it is the latest attempt by conservatives to introduce religion into the school science curriculum.

The Dover case sparked a trial in federal court that gained nationwide attention after the school board was sued by parents backed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The board ordered schools to read students a short statement in biology classes informing them that the theory of evolution is not established fact and that gaps exist in it.

The statement mentioned intelligent design as an alternate theory and recommended students read a book that explained the theory further. A decision in the case is expected before the end of the year.

In 1998, Robertson warned the city of Orlando, Florida that it risked hurricanes, earthquakes and terrorist bombs after it allowed homosexual organizations to put up rainbow flags in support of sexual diversity.

Copyright 2005 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Suspected terrorists in U.S. custody are being treated humanely, Bush administration officials said Wednesday after a report that American agents are holding prisoners in a worldwide network of secret facilities.

National security adviser Stephen Hadley would not comment on the accuracy of a Washington Post report that top al Qaeda suspects were being held for questioning "at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe."

But he said President Bush has demanded that U.S. agents treat prisoners "in a way that is consistent with our values and principles."

"Some people say that the test of your principles is what you do when no one's looking," Hadley said.

"The president has insisted that whether it is in the public or it is in private, the same principles will apply and the same principles will be respected," he said. "To the extent people do not meet up, measure up to those principles, there will be accountability."

The Post cited U.S. officials and those from other governments familiar with the arrangement for its report. The network, the Post said, is "a central element" in the CIA's battle against terrorism, but its existence was known to only a handful of officials at home and abroad.

If true, the arrangement suggests U.S. agents are engaged in activities "that under U.S. law and in U.S. territory and by U.S. personnel would be clearly illegal," said former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, who was once a federal prosecutor.

"There are very serious questions also that what's going on here is also contrary to documents and treaties that the U.S. is a party to," the former congressman from Georgia told CNN.

But Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Bush has ordered his administration to act "in a way that is consistent with our legal obligations, both domestically and internationally," when dealing with prisoners.

"If we find that people are not meeting the standard, there are investigations and people will be held accountable," he said.

High-level al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody, such as Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, are often held in what U.S. officials describe simply as "undisclosed locations" around the world.

CNN has previously reported that Abu Zubaydah and other CIA prisoners were once held in Thailand at a facility that has since been closed, and a few are held at the U.S. military's Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba.

Human rights groups have criticized the practice of "rendition," in which the CIA purportedly has been allowed to secretly transfer terrorist suspects overseas for interrogation. (Full story)

U.S. officials said the spy agency has gone to great lengths to ensure that prisoners were not tortured, but some of those seized and shipped to third countries have said they were drugged, beaten and electrocuted while in custody overseas.

Though the international monitor Human Rights Watch named former Soviet bloc countries where it says the CIA detainees are held, the Post and CNN have not identified those countries at the request of U.S. officials.

Human Rights Watch has published the names of towns in Europe where prisoners have been held and the identification numbers of aircraft used to transport them -- a tactic that angers many intelligence professionals.

"The exposure of such, either firms or aircraft, just undoes years of cover building and makes America weaker," said Michael Scheuer, a former CIA officer who once led the agency's hunt for al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden.

Human Rights Watch spokesman Tom Malinowsky said the practice of holding suspects incommunicado in secret facilities has done "enormous damage" to the reputation of the United States without producing useful intelligence.

His group and others say suspected terrorists should be prosecuted rather than held indefinitely.

But U.S. intelligence officials say the prisoners are producing useful information and that they do not want to give that up.

Allegations that Americans have tortured prisoners have dogged the Bush administration since April 2004, when graphic photographs of Army reservists mistreating prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq became public.

But Hadley said more than a dozen investigations have been conducted into the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody, and procedures have been revised as needed.

In October the Senate voted 90-9 to require American troops to follow interrogation standards set in the Army Field Manual and barred "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of prisoners in U.S. custody.

The provision was not included in a House bill, and the White House has threatened to veto a $440 billion Pentagon spending bill if the measure is part of the final legislation. (Full story)

The administration says existing law already prohibits the mistreatment of prisoners in American custody and the amendment would restrict Bush's power as commander-in-chief.

CNN's David Ensor contributed to this report.

WHEN BELIEFS MEET FACTS, WHICH WILL GIVE WAY?

By David P. Barash

Attend the tale of Tycho Brahe. An influential Danish star-charter of the late 16th century, Brahe served as mentor to the great German astronomer and mathematician Johannes Kepler. In his own right, Brahe achieved remarkable accuracy in measuring the positions of planets as well as stars. But his greatest contribution (at least for my purpose) was something that he would doubtless prefer to leave forgotten, because Brahe's Blunder is one of those errors whose very wrongness (and ubiquity) can teach us a lot about ourselves.

Deep in his heart, Brahe rejected the newly proclaimed Copernican model of the universe, the heretical system that threatened to wrench the Earth from its privileged position at the center of all creation and relegate it to just one of many planets that circle the sun.

But Brahe was also a careful scientist whose observations were undeniable, even as they made him uncomfortable: The five known planets of Brahe's day (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) circled the sun. That much was settled; Copernicus, alas, was right, and nothing could be done about it.

But Brahe, troubled of spirit yet inventive of mind, came up with a solution, a kind of strategic intellectual retreat and regrouping. It was ingenious, allowing him to accept what was irrefutably true while still clinging stubbornly to what he cherished even more: what he wanted to be true.

And so Brahe proposed that the five planets indeed circled the sun, but that this same sun and its planetary retinue obediently revolved around an immobile Earth.

Beware Brahean Blunders. They are not limited to astronomy. Rather, they're a reflection of a basic, widespread human tendency: to accept what you absolutely must, but whenever possible, continue to retain your core beliefs, whether true or not, and regardless of how much mental gymnastics such retention demands.

I suspect that a Brahean Blunder lies at the core of the widespread refusal -- at least in the United States -- to accept an evolutionary origin for the human species, even among people who acknowledge the reality of natural selection. The issue is being raised once again before the national media as a trial in Pennsylvania -- what some are calling a second Scopes ``monkey trial'' -- considers whether ``intelligent design'' should be taught alongside evolution or whether it is religious and has no place in biology class.

Current promoters of intelligent design generally accept the power and primacy of natural selection to generate small-scale evolutionary change. The evolution of antibiotic resistance among bacteria, for example, is beyond dispute. Ditto for the biochemical and genetic similarity of closely related species.

But when it comes to their fundamental belief system, they are clinging to the illusion that human beings are so special that only a benevolent god could have produced them and, therefore, the material world -- like Brahe's sun and its five planets -- must revolve around them.

Brahean Blunders abound and not only in the realms of science (like Brahe's field, astronomy) and pseudoscience (like intelligent design). We also see them in the political ideologue who, faced with contrary, unpalatable yet undeniable facts, stubbornly manages to retain his dogma, often remarkably unchanged. Capital punishment doesn't actually reduce the murder rate? Well, it ``sends a message'' nonetheless. Climate heating up? Well, there's always been variability in the Earth's temperature, and besides, warming might actually be good for us.

I also suspect that in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, American conservatives will partake of their own Brahean Blunder, acknowledging grudgingly that maybe government has some very limited, teensy-weensy role to play when it comes to contributing to the public good, but insisting that such a role should be limited to disaster relief.

Finally, there is the biggest Brahean Blunder of them all: refusal to admit to the possibility of Brahean Blunders in the first place.

-DAVID P. BARASH, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington, wrote this article for the Los Angeles Times.

Tom DeLay stepped down as Majority Leader after being indicted by a grand jury. Today is an awesome day. (I also set up my voicemail--a month after getting my phone--and arranged a lesson with Lynn Chang. Plus today is Silk Road Ensemble dinner day.)

I've got eight minutes before I run into the block of time reserved for German studying, so I'll be concise.

I dislike John Cage. Not in the same way I dislike Bush or Tom Cruise, but I do very strongly disagree with his views.
1. Cage believes that the future of music is electronic. As a classical musician playing an instrument born a few centuries ago, I'm admittedly a bit biased in my views. But hear me out. I'll concede that electronic music is definitely becoming more and more prevalent, especially in pop music. But to call it the future of music? In my mind, that's giving it a bit more importance than it deserves. Cage's statement implies that the performer is of a dying breed, that one day it will be computers that give performances. Which brings me to my next point.
2. Cage advocates the use of electronic music because it deletes the middleman. He sees this as an opportunity for the composer to reach directly to the masses. There's nothing wrong with that, of course; a composer has a right to say that there is a correct and incorrect way to play his music. However, I believe that most composers would agree that any performance is a collaboration between the composer and the performer. It's called interpretation, and it's usually guided by instinct, as opposed to calculated. And even in cases where there isn't an intermediary, the composer himself might give two drastically different performances. Milstein performing his own Paganiniana comes to mind. I've got two recordings: one employs open strings whenever possible, striving for cleanliness. The other is a more conventional avoid-open-strings version that focuses on a beautiful sound. Same person, same piece, different performance, and no right answer.

Hm looks like I ran out of time. More on this later. Possibly.

Every noun has a gender, and there is no sense or system in the distribution; so the gender of each must be learned separately and by heart. There is no other way. To do this one has to have a memory like a memorandum-book. In German, a young lady has no sex, while a turnip has. Think what overwrought reverence that shows for the turnip, and what callous disrespect for the girl. See how it looks in print -- I translate this from a conversation in one of the best of the German Sunday-school books:

Gretchen: Wilhelm, where is the turnip?
Wilhelm: She has gone to the kitchen.
Gretchen: Where is the accomplished and beautiful English maiden?
Wilhelm: It has gone to the opera.

To continue with the German genders: a tree is male, its buds are female, its leaves are neuter; horses are sexless, dogs are male, cats are female -- tomcats included, of course; a person's mouth, neck, bosom, elbows, fingers, nails, feet, and body are of the male sex, and his head is male or neuter according to the word selected to signify it, and not according to the sex of the individual who wears it -- for in Germany all the women either male heads or sexless ones; a person's nose, lips, shoulders, breast, hands, and toes are of the female sex; and his hair, ears, eyes, chin, legs, knees, heart, and conscience haven't any sex at all. The inventor of the language probably got what he knew about a conscience from hearsay.

Now, by the above dissection, the reader will see that in Germany a man may think he is a man, but when he comes to look into the matter closely, he is bound to have his doubts; he finds that in sober truth he is a most ridiculous mixture; and if he ends by trying to comfort himself with the thought that he can at least depend on a third of this mess as being manly and masculine, the humiliating second thought will quickly remind him that in this respect he is no better off than any woman or cow in the land.

In the German it is true that by some oversight of the inventor of the language, a Woman is a female; but a Wife (Weib) is not -- which is unfortunate. A Wife, here, has no sex; she is neuter; so, according to the grammar, a fish is he, his scales are she, but a fishwife is neither. To describe a wife as sexless may be called under-description; that is bad enough, but over-description is surely worse. A German speaks of an Englishman as the Engländer; to change the sex, he adds inn, and that stands for Englishwoman -- Engländerinn. That seems descriptive enough, but still it is not exact enough for a German; so he precedes the word with that article which indicates that the creature to follow is feminine, and writes it down thus: "die Engländerinn," -- which means "the she-Englishwoman." I consider that that person is over-described.

Well, after the student has learned the sex of a great number of nouns, he is still in a difficulty, because he finds it impossible to persuade his tongue to refer to things as "he" and "she," and "him" and "her," which it has been always accustomed to refer to it as "it." When he even frames a German sentence in his mind, with the hims and hers in the right places, and then works up his courage to the utterance-point, it is no use -- the moment he begins to speak his tongue flies the track and all those labored males and females come out as "its." And even when he is reading German to himself, he always calls those things "it," where as he ought to read in this way:

TALE OF THE FISHWIFE AND ITS SAD FATE
[I capitalize the nouns, in the German (and ancient English) fashion.]

It is a bleak Day. Hear the Rain, how he pours, and the Hail, how he rattles; and see the Snow, how he drifts along, and of the Mud, how deep he is! Ah the poor Fishwife, it is stuck fast in the Mire; it has dropped its Basket of Fishes; and its Hands have been cut by the Scales as it seized some of the falling Creatures; and one Scale has even got into its Eye, and it cannot get her out. It opens its Mouth to cry for Help; but if any Sound comes out of him, alas he is drowned by the raging of the Storm. And now a Tomcat has got one of the Fishes and she will surely escape with him. No, she bites off a Fin, she holds her in her Mouth -- will she swallow her? No, the Fishwife's brave Mother-dog deserts his Puppies and rescues the Fin -- which he eats, himself, as his Reward. O, horror, the Lightning has struck the Fish-basket; he sets him on Fire; see the Flame, how she licks the doomed Utensil with her red and angry Tongue; now she attacks the helpless Fishwife's Foot -- she burns him up, all but the big Toe, and even she is partly consumed; and still she spreads, still she waves her fiery Tongues; she attacks the Fishwife's Leg and destroys it; she attacks its Hand and destroys her also; she attacks the Fishwife's Leg and destroys her also; she attacks its Body and consumes him; she wreathes herself about its Heart and it is consumed; next about its Breast, and in a Moment she is a Cinder; now she reaches its Neck -- he goes; now its Chin -- it goes; now its Nose -- she goes. In another Moment, except Help come, the Fishwife will be no more. Time presses -- is there none to succor and save? Yes! Joy, joy, with flying Feet the she-Englishwoman comes! But alas, the generous she-Female is too late: where now is the fated Fishwife? It has ceased from its Sufferings, it has gone to a better Land; all that is left of it for its loved Ones to lament over, is this poor smoldering Ash-heap. Ah, woeful, woeful Ash-heap! Let us take him up tenderly, reverently, upon the lowly Shovel, and bear him to his long Rest, with the Prayer that when he rises again it will be a Realm where he will have one good square responsible Sex, and have it all to himself, instead of having a mangy lot of assorted Sexes scattered all over him in Spots.

-excerpt from Mark Twain's "The Awful German Language"

1. A treaty is basically an international contract. Thus, the language in such a document is considered binding.

2. The Treaty of Tripoli was ratified by the U.S. in 1797. In other words, it was agreed upon by the same generation that founded our country.

3. Article XI states: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

4. Enough said.

A few months ago, the 2006 budget deficit dropped from $331 billion to $314 billion. Somehow, this was "good news"; the Bush administration used this information to justify their refusal to raise taxes. In the the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Congress approved of $62 billion to be spent on the region. However, this number is just a start. Much like the Iraq War started at $79 billion and now tops $200 billion, Katrina is expected to cost the U.S. at least $200 billion. This puts the deficit at half a trillion--adding on further to the 2.2 trillion the national debt has increased since Bush took office in 2001.

Bush's response: "We should not raise taxes... I'm confident we can handle [the expense]..."

My first thought: It's time for a village in Texas to get its idiot back.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, many people have been criticizing the federal government. President Bush, in particular, has been painted as a bungliing idiot whose ineptitude directly contributed to the woefully inadequate response. Some people, however, have pointed out that this isn't exactly fair. After all, he's doing exactly what we expected from him. We didn't elect him for his compassion towards the poor, his strong leadership, or his grasp on reality. (No, Mr. Bush you are not a "problem-solver;" you need to solve problems to be considered for that title.) We chose him because he's a friend to the rich, white man; his irrational optimism makes us feel better about ourselves; and his actions provide a much-needed humor to these depressing times. Also, the Daily Show wouldn't be have as much fun without him in office.

Let us count the ways he has screwed up. First on the list: his response to 9/11. Yes, people of all colors--red, blue and purple--pulled together in the wake of the event, allowing him to pass vital legislation that made us no safer. However, his actions could almost call him the boy who was bitten by a dog and cried "Dragon!" Yes, the terrorists attacks revealed a gaping hole in the security of the nation--holes that have now been plugged by airline screeners who confiscate nail clippers. (As a side note, my violin case made it past them unscathed. In it, I carried an arsenal of contraband, including nail clippers and a chin rest removing poking thingies. In the wrong hands, my violin case could have become a weapon of mass destruction.) And while we're on the topic of WMDs (ignoring the fact that the topic appeared in parentheses), let us ask ourselves what exactly causes mass destruction. Nuclear weapons: yes. Anthrax: no. Shoe bombs: no. Backpack bombs: nope, sorry. Theyr'e all quite horrible, of course, but they don't exactly cause death in mass quantities. (Read False Alarm for further info. Sorry, I forgot the author.)

But I digress. Back to his response after 9/11: Bush created the Department of Homeland Security, that virtually useless organization whose only useful contribution I can think of is a color-coded alert system. Oh wait, did I say useful? Sorry, there are no useful contributions. Even worse, FEMA was made a part of the Department of Homeland Security. Back when Hurricane Andrew struck Florida, Clinton decided to change the focus of FEMA--created some years back--from civil defense to national disaster preparedness. Under his administration, FEMA prospered. This all changed in 2001. No, not on September 11th. Before that, back in January. The inauguration of President Bush. 9/11 was merely a catalyst in the stripping of power from FEMA. So you see, when Bush calls the response "unacceptable" (he doesn't do it often, so keep your ears open!), we simply shake our heads slowly. Katrina was perhaps the most preventable national disaster to strike the United States. A few years ago, a study named the flooding of New Orleans as one of the three most likely disaster in the near future. Last year, a simulation was ran showing what would happen if a hurricane--Hurricane Pam, in this case--struck New Orleans. (If you're wondering, it's 1 million displaced, 60,000 dead. I wonder how close the numbers will be.) And just last week, a levee engineer announced on TV that if a Category 5, 4, or even 3 hurricane struck New Orleans, the levee system would be overwhelmed.

Have a good time on the West Coast, y'all; I'm on a plane to Boston.