Dangerous Dan

See this post for info on donating money for hurricane relief.

Browsing Huff-Po's blog from the past two days, I spy just six posts that have anything to do with Katrina. Three of those are by native New Orleanian Harry Shearer. Of the last three, one is just a link to picture and the other two shamelessly connect Katrina to politics. Speficially, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is blaming Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour for helping quash Kyoto in the states, which OBVIOUSLY led to massive global warming which in turn OBVIOUSLY caused Katrina. Dal LaMagna seems to think the war on Iraq is distracting the federal government from helping in hurricane relief efforts. Is there nothing that war won't distract the feds from?

This just ain't right:

As Harry Potter fans speculate what still lies in store for the world's favourite boy wizard, few envisage him leaving Hogwarts and settling into a committed gay relationship with arch foe Draco Malfoy.

But some do.

"Draco's breath is warm against his neck, his body gradually relaxing as Harry holds him, refusing to let go, and Harry discovers this is the most comfortable he's ever been in his entire life."

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but sending Harry Potter this direction in fanfic? And with Draco, no less?

Egypt is congratulating the Palestinians on reclaiming land in Gaza after the Israelis withdrew:

GAZA CITY (AFP) – A senior Egyptian envoy told the Palestinian parliament that Cairo would work "hand in hand" with the Palestinians for an end to Israel's occupation of all territory seized in 1967.

"I have the pleasure of being with you to convey the congratulations of President (Hosni) Mubarak and his commitment that we stay hand in hand with you until all Palestinian territory, in the West Bank and as well as Gaza, is liberated," Egypt's intelligence chief Omar Suleiman said on Tuesday.

Where's the irony? What the AFP article leaves out is that Israel obtained occupied Gaza and the West Bank in 1967 as a result of the Six Day War. That was a little skirmish in which several Arab countries, led by Egypt under Gamal Nasser, were about to attack Israel but then got their clocks cleaned in a surprise Israeli strike against a superior (on paper anyway) Egyptian force. So it was largely Egypt's fault that Israel conquered those territories and now the Arab country is congratulating the Palestinians on regaining land lost due to Egypt's screw-up.

From Newsday:

SHANGHAI, China — A Chinese researcher has warned of a new threat to public health and morality — naked Internet chatting. Up to 20,000 Chinese Internet users log on to chatrooms each night in which users in various states of undress talk to each other with the help of Web cams, the Shanghai Daily newspaper said Tuesday, citing China Youth Association researcher Liu Gang.

"At first, we thought if was merely a game for a few mentally abnormal people," the paper quoted Liu as saying. "But as our research continued, we found the problem was much larger than expected," Liu said.

You'd think the Chi-coms would be pleased. After all, it's unlikely these folks are using the internet to plot revolution… as no all-naturist country comes to mind, I don't think there's ever been a successful nudist rebellion. Also, just 20,000 people? That's approximately 0.002% of the country's population.

What's truly frustrating about the upcoming confirmation battle for John Roberts is how the Democrats are quite obviously and shamelessly playing politics in their attempt to defeat a Bush judicial nominee instead of actually judging the man on his abilities and character. They're delving into minutiae of 20+ year-old documents trying to find something, anything, they can pin to Roberts. Despite all their searching, they can't find anything damning and so they demand more documents. They then take isolated quotes from memos out of context and try to make them seem like smoking guns.

The other day I heard Patrick Leahy claim in an interview that it's up to Roberts's supporters in the Senate to prove he's not "dangerous," a ridiculous assertion that only makes sense if you start from the presumption that he is dangerous. This is the point it's gotten to… the Dems can't prove Roberts is "dangerous," so they say the burden of proof is on others to prove he's not dangerous. This is the sign of a desperate debater who, when unable to prove X, indignantly demands that his opponent prove not-X. This also speaks volumes in that the good Senator from Vermont considers Roberts to be dangerous by default just by virtue of being a Bush judicial nominee.

If you want further absurdity on this issue and a demonstration of the character-bashing and demonizing in which the left is engaging, look no further than this amazing editorial by DeWayne Wickham in USA Today. With what must be a barely manageable straight-face, he compares Roberts to the past confirmation and career of Justice Lucius Lamar. Don't know him? Neither did I. He was a prominent member of the Confederacy during the Civil War who drafted Mississippi's secession ordinance and, on the Supreme Court, ruled with the majority in Plessy v. Ferguson. On Wickham's description, he helped end the first Reconstruction and he fears that Roberts will end the "Second Reconstruction." How? Let's see:

If confirmed, Roberts will give the Supreme Court the solid conservative majority it needs to bring to an end the Second Reconstruction, which began 41 years ago with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

…

In 1981, while working as a special assistant in the Reagan administration's Justice Department, Roberts wrote some talking points for Attorney General William Smith. In that document, he argued against a proposed change in the Voting Rights Act that would have made illegal any voting rules that resulted in discrimination — not just those caused by intentional acts of discrimination. Fortunately, Roberts' position didn't prevail. Congress enacted the change.

In another 1981 memo, Roberts wrote mockingly of the outgoing chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "Arthur Flemming … has delivered a copy of his swan song; the commission's statement entitled 'Affirmative Action in the 1980s: Dismantling the Process of Discrimination.' " In this note, he reaffirms his opposition to findings of discrimination in the absence of "intentional acts."

That narrow-sighted view of discrimination might put many cases of environmental racism, redlining, predatory lending and racial profiling beyond the reach of any federal remedy, if Roberts is allowed to join the Supreme Court's conservative wing.

That's right. Because Roberts opposed the use of federal laws to prosecute unintentional discrimination (not discrimination in general, mind you), he is comparable to a former Southern Confederate who helped pave the way for Jim Crow laws. In Wickham's fevered imagination, Roberts will apparently "turn back the clock" to the days of segregation and end the advancements of minorities achieved under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

This is too absurd to credit with possessing a semblance of rationality. It does, however, exhibit the demonizing of Roberts by a ham-handed comparison of him to Lamar and also the panicked scrounging for anything that the left might use against him. In this case, two 24 year-old memos in which his legal opinions are taken out of any legal context… and even then they don't seem that bad.

This whole confirmation mess merely demonstrates the obstructionism of the Democrats in that they're unwilling to debate Roberts on his merits and will resort to innuendo and unfounded accusations to defeat the man Bush nominated. In 2004, the liberal motto was Anybody But Bush. Apparently ABB extends to the President's nominees as well. Call it ABBN: Anybody But Bush's Nominees. We saw it with several appellate appointments, with John Bolton, and now we're seeing it with Roberts. Where has the mature leadership of the Democratic party gone that is interested in responsible government and not cheap partisan political games?

(trackbacked to Jawa)

Cindy Sheehan has now admitted that she's glad Bush didn't meet with her.

"I look back on it, and I am very, very, very grateful he did not meet with me, because we have sparked and galvanized the peace movement," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "If he'd met with me, then I would have gone home, and it would have ended there."

Count 'em… that's three 'very's.' I said a while back that Sheehan had ceased to be a grieving mother and had instead become a political activist with a political agenda and that as such, Bush should treat her politically and not meet with her. She was never interested in asking questions, or at least none for which she was earnestly interested in proffered answers. She wanted to berate President Bush. Had Bush met with her a second time, that's just what she would have done and then she would have played it up in the media saying that in the meeting he lied, was hostile, callous, or some other account that fits her perception of Bush and her agenda. It actually probably would have helped her. Now, however, she's at least thrown off the fiction that she really wants to meet with Bush, though she will surely continue to play the ignored mother card.

From CNN.com:

Garfunkel, 63, half of the legendary '60s duo Simon and Garfunkel, was pulled over on Sunday by a New York state trooper near Woodstock after running a stop sign, The Daily Freeman newspaper reported on Tuesday.

The trooper's report of the incident said a strong marijuana odor was coming from the car and a marijuana cigarette was found in the ashtray.

Art Garfunkel pulled over near Woodstock for smoking pot. If he was listening to Pink Floyd or the Grateful Dead on the stereo, the irony will be complete.

The aftermath of Katrina is proving to be horrific. New Orleans flooded, several towns in Mississippi and Alabama devastated, people being rescued, looting, etc. Michelle Malkin has a rundown on some of the latest events, including the Lord of the Flies mentality some are adopting.

As bad as this, it's not the worst America has seen. In 1900, Galveston, TX, was hit by a hurricane that nearly wiped out the city. In fact, the only thing which prevented that from happening is that all the debris from the destroyed buildings mashed up against the remaining structures and formed a ghastly seawall of wood, glass, and bodies. Estimates of the dead range from 8,000 to 12,000. An entire orphanage near the beach was washed away. Survivors later found children tied to each of the home's nuns in a failed effort to save them. In the aftermath, groups collected the corpses and threw them on fires scattered throughout the island. It was weeks before the pyres went out.

Now this seems a highly inappropriate story given the current situation, but I tell it for a reason. I've heard a few people say that New Orleans or other endangered cities should be abandoned or greatly scaled back. After all, the worst has happened and could happen again. Disasters, though, should not cause fear or retreat. Rather they are a time to learn. Why did the levees fail, what can be done to improve them and to improve the drainage pumps, what building codes can be put in place in Gulfport, how can emergency services be improved in Mobile? In short, should a storm hit again, what can be done to lessen its impact?

Galveston used to be known as the New York of the South and its citizens looked down on the backwater two-horse town to the north called Houston. After the hurricane, half the city was wiped out, the island suffered major damage, its road and rail connections to the mainland were severed, and the prized port was unusable. But the people stayed. Cotton was shipping out of the port after three weeks. The major damage came from the storm surge and the fact that the island was only eight feet above sea level. So the citizens built three miles of 17 foot seawalls. Not only that, but they jacked up the city's buildings, deposited dredged sand and raised the town's elevation 17 feet. When a similar hurricane struck in 1915, only 275 people died and the damage was minimal.

The Galvestonians didn't give up on Galveston. They learned and improved for the future. So too will the residents of New Orleans, Gulfport, Mobile, and elsewhere. We cannot control Mother Nature, but we can use her lessons to limit the abuse we'll take in the future.

A group in San Francisco that claims the government was behind 9/11 had a little art contest. It's the usual assortment of nonsense. I did, however, get a good laugh out of this one (click the link or see here).

Once again, an education system lowers its standards to accommodate its students instead of trying to bring them up to meet appropriate expectations. A high school in England is allowing the f-word to be used in each class, but only five times per class, mind you. If the limit is exceeded, a horrible punishment is enacted: "Over this number the class will be spoken to by the teacher at the end of the lesson." That's rough.

This is yet another instance of excusing improper behavior on the basis of "accepting reality." The reasoning here is that these kids use the word all the time anyway, so we might as well let them say it in class… but we'll cap its usage. These are adults giving in to their charges instead of holding them to higher standards. Did I say higher standards? Let's try minimal basic-level standards since not cussing in class should be the very least teachers should expect out of their students.

"The reality is that the f-word is part of these young adults' everyday language."

I'm certain there's a great deal more that goes on these kids' daily lives, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the classroom. This is all asinine. When parents and teachers expect so little out of children, they shouldn't be shocked when their expectations are realized.

The school, which has 1,130 pupils, also plans to send "praise postcards" to the parents of children who do not swear in class.

Other praise postcards the school will likely be sending soon:
"Congrats! 30 days without Jimmy shiving another student!"
"We're proud to tell you that your daughter hasn't done drugs in class once this year!"
"While the rest of the class beat up Mrs. Bolton, your son kindly did not participate."

Oh, and maybe the school can make some bumper stickers: "My kid doesn't say "F*ck" at Northamptonshire Secondary School."

Visit Number 2 Pencil for some more on this.

When Al Sharpton was on the way to DFW Airport after his photo-op with Cindy Sheehan, his driver got pulled over for speeding. It wasn't too bad… just 110mph in a 65, so it's not like he was going double the speed limit or anything.

The most notable part of the article, though: "Sharpton caught a lift from a passing driver and made his scheduled flight to New York."

Stuck… in a car… with Al Sharpton… for at least an hour.

This blog is surprised by two things: 1) That Sharpton's driver was doing only 110mph. 2) That the "passing driver" was not also picked up for speeding.

Clearly, though, the driver has a strong defense and the judge should issue an acquittal.

Does anybody remember all the fretting late last year and earlier this year about the weak U.S. dollar as compared to the euro? The euro was up to around $1.35 and there was all this doom and gloom in the media and about the political implications. You might be wondering why you haven't heard anything about it lately? This might be why:

The dollar's been steadily rising against the euro this year. For some reason, the improving prospects of the greenback have escaped the media's attention. During the original "crisis," they also tended to omit how the euro is heavily propped up by the EU, that the single currency has been very bad for several member economies, and how there's been some vague mumblings among some to withdraw from the monetary unit. I'm no economics expert, but I think that long-term, the long-established currency of the world's largest economy is a better bet than the new one created when 12 disparate economies got mashed together.

Here's a nice account of a public about the effects of pesticides used to combat West Nile Virus. Here's the funny part:

Written questions were to be submitted by audience members and read by Davis Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Yolo County Supervisor Helen Thomson to a panel of officials and experts.

About 30 minutes into the session, audience members revolted against the format, arguing that residents should be able to speak. Asmundson abruptly halted the session and directed the panel to leave the City Hall dais.

Opponents of the spraying took over the meeting and quickly restored order. They elected as their leader a local woman who had caught the virus.

The audience asked about the effectiveness of the pesticides and the possible long-term health effects, but the questions went unanswered because the scientists and government officials had left.

If you have questions you want answered, it's best not to run off the only people around who can do the answering.

This is also like a microcosm of communist revolts. The revolutionaries seize power, quickly set up a bureaucratic hierarchy, and then suddenly realize they got rid of everybody who knew how to do anything.

A study found that Oregon is the only state that did not become more obese last year. That, of course, means that everybody is the health media field must absolutely figure out what Oregon's secret is. One possibility presented is bicycling. Portland, OR, for example has extensive bike paths and its urban planning has made the city bike-friendly. Boulder, CO, which is also trim, is similar. So the reasoning goes that people in these places bike more and are therefore less fat, unlike the chunks in urban sprawl wallows that don't care for bikes.

What makes Oregon different is its emphasis on urban design, which encourages outdoor activities like biking to work, the study's authors said.

Ten percent of Portland residents pedal to the office on a system of bike paths that crisscross the city like arteries, just as they do in Boulder, Colorado — another bike-friendly metropolis, located in the leanest state in the nation. Only 16.4 percent of Coloradans are obese, according to the study.
…
If a city or town is built in such a way that it forces residents to drive long distances, instead of walking or cycling, then physical activity becomes something that has to be planned rather than an activity which can be woven into the fabric of everyday life, he said.

I'm all for biking. I ride my mountain bike almost daily around the neighborhood and do some off-roading. That doesn't mean cities necessarily should take bikes into account when designing their layouts. There's something these bike advocates leave out: weather.

Here's the average highs and lows by month for Portland:

Now here's the chart for Dallas, TX (as an example city):

You might notice a slight difference, such as it's damn hot in Dallas but the temperatures remain fairly mild throughout the year in Portland. In other places, it gets damn cold in the winter, and yet other cities get both damn hot in the summer and damn cold in the winter, though the spring and fall may be comparatively pleasant. The point is that a city like Dallas could build nice bike paths and encourage people to bike to work (assuming they're not coming from a suburb 20 miles away), etc., but people wouldn't use them because they'd be drenched by the time they got to work. In hot climates, exercise has to be planned, if for no other reason than a shower is required at its conclusion. The one exception to this might be Austin, TX, but I don't know that it counts as it has a gigantic urban college populace and the surrounding hill country (and Lance) has made it a cycling mecca.

The last word on all this is that the study may not be worth much and we shouldn't waste our time studying the daily routines of Oregonians:

The study, however, has its critics, including state epidemiologist Melvin Kohn, who said that while the findings look impressive on paper, nearly 59 percent of adult Oregonians are classified as either "obese" or "overweight."

"That's almost two-thirds of Oregonians," said Kohn. "I don't think we can rest on our laurels and say we don't have a problem."

And others say that the study — which compared two three-year intervals, 2001 through 2003 and 2002 through 2004 — is not long enough to be significant.

"Why would Washington state be that different from Oregon?" said obesity surgeon Peter LePort, the medical director of the Center for Obesity in Fountain Valley, Calif. "The fact that it didn't increase over one period could be a statistical fluke."