How weird is Dan Rather? Read below:
Dan Rather, Sept. 20, 2004:
"I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where-if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question. But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry."
Dan Rather, last night:
"The facts of the story were correct. One supporting pillar of the story, albeit an important one, one supporting pillar was brought into question. To this day, no one has proven whether it was what it purported to be or not....The story is accurate."
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Sunday, September 25, 2005
The Same 100,000
Yesterday in Washington D.C. about 100,000 "anti-war" protesters converged to state their case yet again. Saturday was probably not a very good time for them to do it, as Hurricane Rita was about to bear down on the gulf states. Not only was it in bad taste that they decided to protest on a day that would (but by all accounts appears to not have) resulted in another natural disaster of epic proportions, but it also inevitably led to little to no coverage of their collective jeremiad, as all the networks were covering the hurricane and not their protest. Oh well.
Whilst on the subject, another thing has struck me: the protests aren't growing. Contrary to the 60's (the heyday of people like those that protested Saturday), it seems as if it is the same 100,000 people that show up for these rallies. I'm fairly certain that I am right, too. These same 100,000 people were in New York for the Republican National Convention, in all likelihood the same people (albeit a smaller group) were in Crawford, Texas this August with now-certified loon Cindy Sheehan, and probably were at every other protest since the beginning of the Iraq war, and in all likelihood were protesting the Afghan war as well. Why are they not growing if this war is so unpopular with the majority of the American public, as the "anti-war" radicals claim?
The answer is quite simple: there's no draft. And as we're fighting with an all-volunteer armed services, the people that are doing the fighting and dying are doing it on a voluntary basis. The massive protests of the 1960's were less altruistic than some historians will have you believe they were. Lost in the glee of the radical left's recounting of the story is the fact that the college kids involved in those protests were doing it because they didn't want to get drafted and go to Vietnam! More self-interest than anything else was at work. That is not the case at the moment, which is why people like Congressman Charlie Rangel cynically drew up a bill with the expressed purpose of re-imposing the draft. The "anti-war" left knows that the only way they'll be able to foment enough protest for this war in the streets of America is by threatening the kids of America with falsehoods about the re-instatement of the draft, trying to scare them into joining their movement. It's not happening.
When Cindy Sheehan first turned up in Crawford, I thought that she could really do some damage to Bush and the war effort. Here she was, an aggrieved mother who lost her son in a war she felt was unjustified. If she hadn't allied herself with the most radical elements of the American left (International ANSWER, Code Pink, Win Without War, etc.), she might've had a substantial impact. But it was not to be. Instead of sticking to the matter at hand (Iraq), she started saying ugly things like, "This country isn't worth dying for!", proclaiming radical lawyer and convicted terrorist enabler Lynne Stewart her "Atticus Finch", and coming out about actions in Afghanistan, which most people in this country, whatever their feelings are about Iraq, overwhelmingly support. Her impact was nullified by her idiocy. I'm sorry that she lost her son, but he signed up for the Marine Corps on his own volition. And contrary to her contention that he was lied to by his recruiter to get him to join, the kid signed up voluntarily for a second tour of duty. Who is this woman kidding?
The left is now crowing that 58% of the American public is against the war in Iraq; it's probably closer to 50%, as per the Rasmussen poll, but it matters not. I would venture to say that the reason the opposition numbers are so high is not because they disagree with the war, but rather they've grown impatient with the bad news. And the only reason there is bad news is because any good news out there is being quashed by the mainstream media, which its collective leftist bent. I'm not sure how this Iraq endeavor is going to go, but I would imagine it is going better than the news would have you think.
Whilst on the subject, another thing has struck me: the protests aren't growing. Contrary to the 60's (the heyday of people like those that protested Saturday), it seems as if it is the same 100,000 people that show up for these rallies. I'm fairly certain that I am right, too. These same 100,000 people were in New York for the Republican National Convention, in all likelihood the same people (albeit a smaller group) were in Crawford, Texas this August with now-certified loon Cindy Sheehan, and probably were at every other protest since the beginning of the Iraq war, and in all likelihood were protesting the Afghan war as well. Why are they not growing if this war is so unpopular with the majority of the American public, as the "anti-war" radicals claim?
The answer is quite simple: there's no draft. And as we're fighting with an all-volunteer armed services, the people that are doing the fighting and dying are doing it on a voluntary basis. The massive protests of the 1960's were less altruistic than some historians will have you believe they were. Lost in the glee of the radical left's recounting of the story is the fact that the college kids involved in those protests were doing it because they didn't want to get drafted and go to Vietnam! More self-interest than anything else was at work. That is not the case at the moment, which is why people like Congressman Charlie Rangel cynically drew up a bill with the expressed purpose of re-imposing the draft. The "anti-war" left knows that the only way they'll be able to foment enough protest for this war in the streets of America is by threatening the kids of America with falsehoods about the re-instatement of the draft, trying to scare them into joining their movement. It's not happening.
When Cindy Sheehan first turned up in Crawford, I thought that she could really do some damage to Bush and the war effort. Here she was, an aggrieved mother who lost her son in a war she felt was unjustified. If she hadn't allied herself with the most radical elements of the American left (International ANSWER, Code Pink, Win Without War, etc.), she might've had a substantial impact. But it was not to be. Instead of sticking to the matter at hand (Iraq), she started saying ugly things like, "This country isn't worth dying for!", proclaiming radical lawyer and convicted terrorist enabler Lynne Stewart her "Atticus Finch", and coming out about actions in Afghanistan, which most people in this country, whatever their feelings are about Iraq, overwhelmingly support. Her impact was nullified by her idiocy. I'm sorry that she lost her son, but he signed up for the Marine Corps on his own volition. And contrary to her contention that he was lied to by his recruiter to get him to join, the kid signed up voluntarily for a second tour of duty. Who is this woman kidding?
The left is now crowing that 58% of the American public is against the war in Iraq; it's probably closer to 50%, as per the Rasmussen poll, but it matters not. I would venture to say that the reason the opposition numbers are so high is not because they disagree with the war, but rather they've grown impatient with the bad news. And the only reason there is bad news is because any good news out there is being quashed by the mainstream media, which its collective leftist bent. I'm not sure how this Iraq endeavor is going to go, but I would imagine it is going better than the news would have you think.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Movies, Newspapers, and Maybe Even Record Companies...
...Will be a thing of the past, so says this columnist for PC Magazine. And it is awfully hard to refute his argument. As for record companies, I think they're going to have to do some serious downsizing as well. Gone are the days when a record company could put out an album with three or four good songs, six or seven other "filler" (i.e. substandard) songs, and expect to make $13 gross profit off of the CD sale. Online internet stores like iTunes, with 30 second snippets of songs for sale for the low price of .99 cents per, are eating the record industry's lunch; people are buying the quality tracks and leaving the filler behind. Couple that with the ability of bands to now sell their product over the internet and bypass their record company (Pearl Jam, par example), and the record companies on the whole are in an even bigger quandary. Thirdly, with the advent of computer recording software (ProTools, Logic Pro, Reason), it is no longer a huge cash outlay for the unsigned musical artist (me) to produce professional sounding recordings at a tiny fraction of the price of recording in a big recording studio.
About twenty years ago, every town on Long Island had its own movie theatre. Those days are long gone, eradicated by the ten movie multiplexes situated around the county. The theatres were smaller, but the choices were more, and the profit margins were higher. And now, according to the author of the linked article above, even those are in jeopardy. In the same light, I feel that the advent of rap is the equivalent of the multiplex: there's a lot of product, and it is more cost effective to produce (just a rapper, a drum machine, and a sampler are needed), and it also represents the downgrading of the music experience. (It is not music, as music is played by musicians, not people who rhyme in ghetto slang over a sampled beat, but that's an argument for another time. I take that back; there is no argument.)
It also represents the end of mass produced music by corporate entities.
And none too soon.
About twenty years ago, every town on Long Island had its own movie theatre. Those days are long gone, eradicated by the ten movie multiplexes situated around the county. The theatres were smaller, but the choices were more, and the profit margins were higher. And now, according to the author of the linked article above, even those are in jeopardy. In the same light, I feel that the advent of rap is the equivalent of the multiplex: there's a lot of product, and it is more cost effective to produce (just a rapper, a drum machine, and a sampler are needed), and it also represents the downgrading of the music experience. (It is not music, as music is played by musicians, not people who rhyme in ghetto slang over a sampled beat, but that's an argument for another time. I take that back; there is no argument.)
It also represents the end of mass produced music by corporate entities.
And none too soon.
Bill Maher
There are times when I find his show excruciatingly idiotic, and rightly so. I've tuned in over the years (on both his ABC late night show and his new HBO show) and have shook my head with disbelief at the vacuousness of the guests, not to mention Maher's insipid, boilerplate humor. However, the last two times that I've watched Maher's HBO show (because I'm a glutton for punishment, natch), the obligatory conservative/human sacrifice guests have not only held their own against stacked odds (Maher's typical formula is to stack the guest panel with two liberals, one conservative, and a highly left-wing cheering section/audience, thus ensuring that any points the guest conservative/dissenter makes gets drowned out and sufficiently mocked), they've actually managed to clean the clocks of Maher, the audience, and the left-wing guests. Two weeks ago James Glassman, who runs the blog TechCentralStation and is a trained economist and a libertarian, managed to make Maher, journalist Cynthia Tucker, and the no longer relevant George Carlin look positively foolish. As an added bonus, Kurt Vonnegut managed to make himself look like a doddering old crank. (This he did unassissted.) Glassman punctured one lefty canard emanating from Maher's and Carlin's mouth after another. So good was Glassman that Maher actually "shushed" his audience so that Glassman could get his point across uninterrupted. Conversely, Carlin sagged back on his tired old left-wing bromides like, "Elections and politicians are in place in order to give Americans the illusion that they have freedom of choice." Sure George....nice to see the recovery is going well. No more booze and sedatives in his life, thank you.
Even better than the Glassman episode was last night's episode, which pitted the brilliant Christopher Hitchens against George Galloway, British MP and apologist for Islamic extremism. (Islamic extremism....what a redundant phrase.) Hitchens is no conservative, but he is one of the sharpest intellectuals in the world, and yet again, the lefties got their clocks cleaned. Galloway's contention that British and American actions in the middle east have produced "10,000 more bin Ladens" (how do these people quantify that number?) was met with Hitchens rightly pointing out that American shipping in the Mediterranean was raided by the North African muslims (sorry, moslems) from 1785 to 1815, with no diplomatic justification. The reasoning of the Dey of Algiers, who was one of the chief instigators of this calumny, gave? The Koran. (Color me shocked!) So, here's what it boils down to: do nothing and left the Islamists have their way with us because, hey, they're mad at us! Or respond forcefully, but, oh no, they'll really get mad at us! That's the left-wing position articulated by Galloway and Maher, consciously or not. Galloway also went on to say that Cuban exiles on the coast of Florida were also terrorists, because they were plotting to overthrow Fidel Castro since 1959, and yet America was okay with them. Amazing.
I just wanted to post these observations on Maher's show because they're indicative of the fact that, when confronted with actual historical fact and measured reasoning, the left cannot win, particularly in regards to their myopic defense of an Islamic ideology which makes American conservativism seem like radical libertarianism. (Quiz: who do you think radical feminist Eve Ensler would say is more dangerous to the universal rights of women: Ayatollah Khamenei or George Bush? Discuss your answers amongst yourselves.) This is why they're so shrill, angry, and regurgitate the same soundbytes (how many times does the "Bush is stupid!" joke have to be regurgitated before it ceases being remotely amusing or even remotely interesting? Ad infinitum, I would imagine the answer would be...) in lieu of actual reasoned thought. Disagree with them...and you're a fascist!!!!
(Yawn.)
Even better than the Glassman episode was last night's episode, which pitted the brilliant Christopher Hitchens against George Galloway, British MP and apologist for Islamic extremism. (Islamic extremism....what a redundant phrase.) Hitchens is no conservative, but he is one of the sharpest intellectuals in the world, and yet again, the lefties got their clocks cleaned. Galloway's contention that British and American actions in the middle east have produced "10,000 more bin Ladens" (how do these people quantify that number?) was met with Hitchens rightly pointing out that American shipping in the Mediterranean was raided by the North African muslims (sorry, moslems) from 1785 to 1815, with no diplomatic justification. The reasoning of the Dey of Algiers, who was one of the chief instigators of this calumny, gave? The Koran. (Color me shocked!) So, here's what it boils down to: do nothing and left the Islamists have their way with us because, hey, they're mad at us! Or respond forcefully, but, oh no, they'll really get mad at us! That's the left-wing position articulated by Galloway and Maher, consciously or not. Galloway also went on to say that Cuban exiles on the coast of Florida were also terrorists, because they were plotting to overthrow Fidel Castro since 1959, and yet America was okay with them. Amazing.
I just wanted to post these observations on Maher's show because they're indicative of the fact that, when confronted with actual historical fact and measured reasoning, the left cannot win, particularly in regards to their myopic defense of an Islamic ideology which makes American conservativism seem like radical libertarianism. (Quiz: who do you think radical feminist Eve Ensler would say is more dangerous to the universal rights of women: Ayatollah Khamenei or George Bush? Discuss your answers amongst yourselves.) This is why they're so shrill, angry, and regurgitate the same soundbytes (how many times does the "Bush is stupid!" joke have to be regurgitated before it ceases being remotely amusing or even remotely interesting? Ad infinitum, I would imagine the answer would be...) in lieu of actual reasoned thought. Disagree with them...and you're a fascist!!!!
(Yawn.)
Phil Hartman
Today is actor/comedian Phil Hartman's birthday. I liked Hartman a lot, finding him to be a highly original personality, as well as a multi-faceted talent. His work on Saturday Night Live and the sitcom News Radio was exceptionally funny. He had an everyman quality about him, and he came off kind of like a guy you'd get to know through consistently riding a commuter train from Westchester with him. That he would say some of the most outrageous, racous things whilst maintaining that type of facade made him that much more funny. His murder by his own wife was shocking, but it just goes to show that one never knows what goes on behind people's closed doors.
(I'm back from my business trip, btw. I'm posting in NYC.)
(I'm back from my business trip, btw. I'm posting in NYC.)
Sunday, September 18, 2005
This Week
I'm off to the midwest for a business trip. I anticipate that I won't have an opportunity to post much, if at all. As a result I don't anticipate that I'll be able to post until next Friday/Saturday. And so, in my absence, I wish you all the best. Slainte mhath.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Quoth Churchill
Churchill describing his highest profile general during the Second World War, the haughty and arrogant Gen. Bernard Law Montgomery:
"Indomitable in retreat; invincible in advance; insufferable in victory."
-- Winston Churchill, on General Montgomery
"Indomitable in retreat; invincible in advance; insufferable in victory."
-- Winston Churchill, on General Montgomery
Friday, September 16, 2005
Here's A Protest I'd Join...
...And I wish I had. This week, the United Nations hosted Iranian President Ahmadinejad, and many Iranian-Americans, as well as others, greeted him with well-deserved ill-humor. I didn't see any of the Union Square loonies anywhere in these pics, but there were plenty of people there to make a ruckus. You can view the protests here, here, and here. Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, nor any member of International ANSWER or Code Pink were in attendance, according to news reports. However, Sheehan has been quite vocal about the presence of the military in New Orleans. Quoth Cindy, "George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self [sic] from power."
"Occupied New Orleans". That's worth a chuckle.
"Occupied New Orleans". That's worth a chuckle.
Man....Am I Tired...
Just started a new position with a rather large Forture 500 company this week, and I'm zonked. I anticipate that I'll be more productive with this blog over the next few weeks when I regain my stamina and increase my intake of Red Bull. In the meantime, my output might be a bit skint. Apologies to my regular readers for a less than prodigious output this week.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Guest Blogger, Downtown Rod, Assesses The "Crescent Of Embrace"
Quite a bit of controversy has been kicking up recently regarding the proposed memorial for those that lost their lives on Flight 93, which crashed into a field in Pennslyvania on September 11th of 2001. Ironically, the proposed memorial looks like a crescent, the universal emblem of Islam. Downtown Rod, friend and fellow ranconteur, is on the case and sheds light on the architectural motivation behind the the so-called "Cresent of Embrace" memorial:
By now many bloggers are aware of the controversy over the "winning" Flight 93 memorial design, by one Paul Murdoch, a Los Angeles architect. Entitled "Crescent of Embrace", the design, bluntly put, emulates an Islamic crescent. (See here for pic.) As with many architects, Murdoch fancies himself a deep thinker, and this usually means being able to spout the latest in post-modern, deconstructionist nonsense. I believe the Architect Murdoch knows exactly what he is doing; his task was to design a memorial about an event involving suicide bombers. He may have found his inspiration in Columbia Professor Gayatri Spivak's "post-colonial" deconstruction of terrorism. Professor Spivak offered her views on the concept of "deconstructive embrace" in a notorious speech at Leeds University in 2002, and "deconstructed" the concept of suicide bombing. An excerpt from her speech at Leeds:
Suicide bombing -- and the planes of 9/11 were living bombs -- is a purposive self-annihilation, a confrontation between oneself and oneself, the extreme end of autoeroticism; killing oneself as other, in the process of killing others... the destruction of others is indistinguishable from the destruction of the self...Suicidal resistance is a message inscribed in the body when no other means will get through. It is both execution and mourning, for both self and other. For you die with me for the same cause, no matter which side are you on. Because no matter who you are, there are no designated killees [sic] in suicide bombing....there is no dishonor in such shared and innocent death. [Quoted in The New Republic, July 29, 2002, p.9]
She continues:
The ideal relation to the Other, then, is an 'embrace, an act of love'.... Such an embrace may be unrequited, as the differences and distances are too great, but if we are ever to get beyond the vicious cycle of abuse, it is essential to remain open-hearted; not to attempt to recreate the Other narcissistically, in one's own image, but generously, with care and attention.
Mr. Murdoch, this is your thinking too, and you've been outed!
(Source material for this entry can be found here and here. Also, go to Amazon and see that one of the SIPs for one of her books is: "deconstructive embrace".)
By now many bloggers are aware of the controversy over the "winning" Flight 93 memorial design, by one Paul Murdoch, a Los Angeles architect. Entitled "Crescent of Embrace", the design, bluntly put, emulates an Islamic crescent. (See here for pic.) As with many architects, Murdoch fancies himself a deep thinker, and this usually means being able to spout the latest in post-modern, deconstructionist nonsense. I believe the Architect Murdoch knows exactly what he is doing; his task was to design a memorial about an event involving suicide bombers. He may have found his inspiration in Columbia Professor Gayatri Spivak's "post-colonial" deconstruction of terrorism. Professor Spivak offered her views on the concept of "deconstructive embrace" in a notorious speech at Leeds University in 2002, and "deconstructed" the concept of suicide bombing. An excerpt from her speech at Leeds:
Suicide bombing -- and the planes of 9/11 were living bombs -- is a purposive self-annihilation, a confrontation between oneself and oneself, the extreme end of autoeroticism; killing oneself as other, in the process of killing others... the destruction of others is indistinguishable from the destruction of the self...Suicidal resistance is a message inscribed in the body when no other means will get through. It is both execution and mourning, for both self and other. For you die with me for the same cause, no matter which side are you on. Because no matter who you are, there are no designated killees [sic] in suicide bombing....there is no dishonor in such shared and innocent death. [Quoted in The New Republic, July 29, 2002, p.9]
She continues:
The ideal relation to the Other, then, is an 'embrace, an act of love'.... Such an embrace may be unrequited, as the differences and distances are too great, but if we are ever to get beyond the vicious cycle of abuse, it is essential to remain open-hearted; not to attempt to recreate the Other narcissistically, in one's own image, but generously, with care and attention.
Mr. Murdoch, this is your thinking too, and you've been outed!
(Source material for this entry can be found here and here. Also, go to Amazon and see that one of the SIPs for one of her books is: "deconstructive embrace".)
Monday, September 12, 2005
Mark Messier
When the Islanders played the Edmonton Oilers for the second time in the Stanley Cup finals in 1984, we Islander fans (I was an Islander fan then, before they became too painful and inept to watch in the 90's) thought it would be a repeat of the '83 finals. Sure the Oilers had Gretzky, Anderson, Coffey, Messier, and Kurri. But we had Potvin, Trottier, Bossy, and Billy Smith. Sure they were quicker than the Islanders, but they certainly weren't smarter, and frankly, they played suspect team defense. The Oiler philosophy up 'til that point was to win by outscoring the opposition. Even Gretzky once said that it was more fun to win a game by a score of 10-8 than 2-1. That may have been the case, but you can't win Stanley Cups that way. And the Edmonton Oilers, with that attitude going into the '83 finals, didn't. Islander goalie Billy Smith said at the time that he thought Gretzky was a great player, but that one day he was going to grab him, skate him down the ice, and introduce him to his goalie. Funny as the comment was at the time, Smith wasn't joking.
The Islanders swept the Oilers four straight in that '83 Stanley Cup final, winning their fourth straight Stanley Cup. Gretzky said that the moment he was dreading more than anything after Game 4 was walking by the Islanders locker-room celebration. Walking out with defenseman Kevin Lowe, both young Oilers witnessed something they didn't quite expect. Far from seeing an ebullient, joyous celebration, the Islander locker-room was muted. Coming into view, they saw Denis Potvin with an ice-pack on his shoulder, Clark Gillies getting a gash under his eye treated, Bryan Trottier getting his head iced. It was as if the entire Islander team were being treated for injuries of some sort or another. Kevin Lowe turned to Gretzky and said, "That's what it takes to win championships." The Islanders got in front of every slapshot, even if it broke a rib. They dove for every loose puck. They finished every check, knowing that more times than not vicious body-checks are sometimes as painful to give as they are to receive. They paid the price. Messier saw the scene in the Islander locker-room, too. All the Oilers did; they couldn't help but see it, for to get to the exit, it couldn't be bypassed.
The next year, the '84 finals, went down much differently. The Oilers won Game 1 by a score of 1-0; a journeyman plug by the name of Kevin McClelland scored the lone Oiler goal. I had a feeling this was a bad omen; the Oilers had won a game the way the Islanders usually won...by grinding it out. The Oilers had learned their lesson now. They were willing to take the puck in the ribs, the elbows in the face, and dive for every loose puck. They were beating the Isles at their own game. It was a major turning point. The Isles took Game 2 handily, but even that game didn't give the appearance that the Islanders had taken control. They hadn't. Game 3 was in Edmonton, and it was in that game that I started to get an idea of who Mark Messier was. He was something to behold. Down 2-1, Messier, now playing center instead of his normal left-wing position, bore down on Islander defenseman Gord Dineen. He wove in and out with tremendous agility and speed, then gained the inside of the ice from Dineen on the left side of the ice, and let loose the fastest, cleanest, and most accurate wrist shot I'd ever seen. Putting it down low into the bottom right of the net, I had a feeling that this was the end of the Islanders....and it was only Game 3. The Oilers wound up blowing out the Isles that game by a score of 7-2. They did it again in Game 4 by the same score. The coup de grace, Game 5, they won with a resounding 5-2 score. Held scoreless for most of the series, Gretzky was not a huge factor in the '84 finals. Messier was. And though Gretzky was the no.1 center on the Oilers, it was Messier who took the draws against the Isles no.1 line center, the great Bryan Trottier. Winning most of the draws, scoring all the important goals, out-hustling, and physically beating Trottier was a pretty damn amazing accomplishment. All of 23 at the time, Messier beat the virtually unbeatable Trottier in virtually every department. The torch had been passed.
Messier went on to win five Stanley Cups with the Oilers, one of which was after Gretzky got traded to the Los Angeles Kings. He did the unthinkable in New York, leading the oft-futile Rangers to a Stanley Cup in 1994. His performance in Game 6 of the conference semi-finals that year was the greatest clutch performance of any player I've ever witnessed or read about in any sport. Joe Namath might've guaranteed the Jets would win Super Bowl III, but he didn't make that guarantee in the 3rd quarter down 14 points. Conversely, Mark Messier guaranteed that the Rangers would go out in win Game 6 against the Devils. The Rangers had just dropped two previous games and were on the verge of elimination. They looked and played like sh*t, but Messier said the right thing. On the front page of the New York Post it blared Messiers clarion call. I remember it well: "Captain Courageous Predicts: We'll Win Tonight". Then he went out and scored three of four Ranger goals that night, and the one goal he didn't score he assisted on. It defied explanation, and appeared almost super-human. He almost single-handedly fulfilled his own prediction. Unbelievable.
Messier retires with the second highest point total in NHL history, second only to the Great Gretzky. While not as naturally talented or poised as Gretzky, Messier possessed skills that Gretzky did not. Former NHL defenseman Ric Nattress put it best when describing Messier: "Big. Strong. Fast. Great shot. Physical. Mean. Durable. Great leader. What else could you possibly ask for in any individual? Twenty years ago when he broke into this league, Mark Messier was the prototype for a franchise player. And he'll continue to be the prototype. Today, tomorrow and a hundred years from now."
The Islanders swept the Oilers four straight in that '83 Stanley Cup final, winning their fourth straight Stanley Cup. Gretzky said that the moment he was dreading more than anything after Game 4 was walking by the Islanders locker-room celebration. Walking out with defenseman Kevin Lowe, both young Oilers witnessed something they didn't quite expect. Far from seeing an ebullient, joyous celebration, the Islander locker-room was muted. Coming into view, they saw Denis Potvin with an ice-pack on his shoulder, Clark Gillies getting a gash under his eye treated, Bryan Trottier getting his head iced. It was as if the entire Islander team were being treated for injuries of some sort or another. Kevin Lowe turned to Gretzky and said, "That's what it takes to win championships." The Islanders got in front of every slapshot, even if it broke a rib. They dove for every loose puck. They finished every check, knowing that more times than not vicious body-checks are sometimes as painful to give as they are to receive. They paid the price. Messier saw the scene in the Islander locker-room, too. All the Oilers did; they couldn't help but see it, for to get to the exit, it couldn't be bypassed.
The next year, the '84 finals, went down much differently. The Oilers won Game 1 by a score of 1-0; a journeyman plug by the name of Kevin McClelland scored the lone Oiler goal. I had a feeling this was a bad omen; the Oilers had won a game the way the Islanders usually won...by grinding it out. The Oilers had learned their lesson now. They were willing to take the puck in the ribs, the elbows in the face, and dive for every loose puck. They were beating the Isles at their own game. It was a major turning point. The Isles took Game 2 handily, but even that game didn't give the appearance that the Islanders had taken control. They hadn't. Game 3 was in Edmonton, and it was in that game that I started to get an idea of who Mark Messier was. He was something to behold. Down 2-1, Messier, now playing center instead of his normal left-wing position, bore down on Islander defenseman Gord Dineen. He wove in and out with tremendous agility and speed, then gained the inside of the ice from Dineen on the left side of the ice, and let loose the fastest, cleanest, and most accurate wrist shot I'd ever seen. Putting it down low into the bottom right of the net, I had a feeling that this was the end of the Islanders....and it was only Game 3. The Oilers wound up blowing out the Isles that game by a score of 7-2. They did it again in Game 4 by the same score. The coup de grace, Game 5, they won with a resounding 5-2 score. Held scoreless for most of the series, Gretzky was not a huge factor in the '84 finals. Messier was. And though Gretzky was the no.1 center on the Oilers, it was Messier who took the draws against the Isles no.1 line center, the great Bryan Trottier. Winning most of the draws, scoring all the important goals, out-hustling, and physically beating Trottier was a pretty damn amazing accomplishment. All of 23 at the time, Messier beat the virtually unbeatable Trottier in virtually every department. The torch had been passed.
Messier went on to win five Stanley Cups with the Oilers, one of which was after Gretzky got traded to the Los Angeles Kings. He did the unthinkable in New York, leading the oft-futile Rangers to a Stanley Cup in 1994. His performance in Game 6 of the conference semi-finals that year was the greatest clutch performance of any player I've ever witnessed or read about in any sport. Joe Namath might've guaranteed the Jets would win Super Bowl III, but he didn't make that guarantee in the 3rd quarter down 14 points. Conversely, Mark Messier guaranteed that the Rangers would go out in win Game 6 against the Devils. The Rangers had just dropped two previous games and were on the verge of elimination. They looked and played like sh*t, but Messier said the right thing. On the front page of the New York Post it blared Messiers clarion call. I remember it well: "Captain Courageous Predicts: We'll Win Tonight". Then he went out and scored three of four Ranger goals that night, and the one goal he didn't score he assisted on. It defied explanation, and appeared almost super-human. He almost single-handedly fulfilled his own prediction. Unbelievable.
Messier retires with the second highest point total in NHL history, second only to the Great Gretzky. While not as naturally talented or poised as Gretzky, Messier possessed skills that Gretzky did not. Former NHL defenseman Ric Nattress put it best when describing Messier: "Big. Strong. Fast. Great shot. Physical. Mean. Durable. Great leader. What else could you possibly ask for in any individual? Twenty years ago when he broke into this league, Mark Messier was the prototype for a franchise player. And he'll continue to be the prototype. Today, tomorrow and a hundred years from now."
Sunday, September 11, 2005
And On A Lighter Note....
Life is for the living, so I'm going to tell you how I'm living, specifically what I'm reading, what I'm listening to, what I'm watching:
Movie: Broken Flowers
Went to the Angelika Cinema on Houston (Manhattan, that is) today to see an indy flick. I've been doing this for about a decade; makes me feel urbane and sophisticated. (Ha, ha.) Also allows me to forget about life for a few hours. This indy flick, directed by Jim Jarmusch (of "Ghost Dog" fame, with Forrest Whittaker), is your typical slow-moving, dialogue driven indy. Not bad by any means, mind you. (It takes a certain amount of practice and continued watching of indy flicks to get the pace down to the point of where it doesn't bother you and it becomes rather enjoyable.) Bill Murray plays an affluent, lonely bachelor who gets an anonymous note from one of his former girlfriends that claims that he's a father of a 19 year old boy, and that the boy is coming to find him. The note is anonymous. His subsequent quest to find out which one of his former girlfriends is the mother leads to several strange encounters, some pleasant, some not. Worth seeing if you're into indies.
Show: Rome-HBO
I got hooked into this about three weeks ago. A historically accurate telling of the fall of the Roman republic to Julius Caeser. Always worth recounting, these historical stories. They remind us all of how delicate democracy is, and how men with guns can destroy civilian, democratic rule. Mao didn't say "power grows out of the barrel of a gun" for nothin'. Well acted, well scripted, well costumed, and a pretty convincing faux Roman buildings.
Music: The Nice-Hold On To A Dream
Keith Emerson's first big band, pre-dating Emerson, Lake & Palmer, did some groundbreaking music. This compilation of The Nice's "best of" material is fun to listen to, even though it sounds very dated, very 60's. (Titles like "Flower King Of Flies" and "Diamond Blue Hard Apples Of The Moon" smack of that weirdly psychedelic 60's, LSD driven lyricism.) The production on most of it isn't very good, but it is awfully entertaining. Emerson was really one of the first rockers to incorporate classical, jazz, ragtime, and hard rock into pop music. He also beat the living crap out of his Hammond organ, coaxing all kinds of weird and wild sounds out of it. (He used to stick knives into the keys of his L-100 Hammond.) Emerson clearly was heavily influenced by Jimi Hendrix at this point, which makes perfect sense, as The Nice did several British gigs with Hendrix. Never big in the States, The Nice are a good listen, despite the technical shortcomings of bassist/vocalist Lee Jackson. (Who, though interesting vocally, certainly was no Greg Lake.)
Mildly Embarrassing Moment Of The Week:
A security guard at Barnes and Noble spying me looking at a Teen Beat magazine Hilary Duff exclusive.
Currently Reading: A History Of The American People, by Paul Johnson
Not to be confused with Howard Zinn's America-hating, agit-prop tome, this comprehensive 1000 page history is quite honest, exceptionally researched, and extraordinarily incisive. It also forces one to continually rethink and re-evaluate how we arrived at this point in American history. It also has reminded me of how thoroughly deficient American history is taught in schools.
Movie: Broken Flowers
Went to the Angelika Cinema on Houston (Manhattan, that is) today to see an indy flick. I've been doing this for about a decade; makes me feel urbane and sophisticated. (Ha, ha.) Also allows me to forget about life for a few hours. This indy flick, directed by Jim Jarmusch (of "Ghost Dog" fame, with Forrest Whittaker), is your typical slow-moving, dialogue driven indy. Not bad by any means, mind you. (It takes a certain amount of practice and continued watching of indy flicks to get the pace down to the point of where it doesn't bother you and it becomes rather enjoyable.) Bill Murray plays an affluent, lonely bachelor who gets an anonymous note from one of his former girlfriends that claims that he's a father of a 19 year old boy, and that the boy is coming to find him. The note is anonymous. His subsequent quest to find out which one of his former girlfriends is the mother leads to several strange encounters, some pleasant, some not. Worth seeing if you're into indies.
Show: Rome-HBO
I got hooked into this about three weeks ago. A historically accurate telling of the fall of the Roman republic to Julius Caeser. Always worth recounting, these historical stories. They remind us all of how delicate democracy is, and how men with guns can destroy civilian, democratic rule. Mao didn't say "power grows out of the barrel of a gun" for nothin'. Well acted, well scripted, well costumed, and a pretty convincing faux Roman buildings.
Music: The Nice-Hold On To A Dream
Keith Emerson's first big band, pre-dating Emerson, Lake & Palmer, did some groundbreaking music. This compilation of The Nice's "best of" material is fun to listen to, even though it sounds very dated, very 60's. (Titles like "Flower King Of Flies" and "Diamond Blue Hard Apples Of The Moon" smack of that weirdly psychedelic 60's, LSD driven lyricism.) The production on most of it isn't very good, but it is awfully entertaining. Emerson was really one of the first rockers to incorporate classical, jazz, ragtime, and hard rock into pop music. He also beat the living crap out of his Hammond organ, coaxing all kinds of weird and wild sounds out of it. (He used to stick knives into the keys of his L-100 Hammond.) Emerson clearly was heavily influenced by Jimi Hendrix at this point, which makes perfect sense, as The Nice did several British gigs with Hendrix. Never big in the States, The Nice are a good listen, despite the technical shortcomings of bassist/vocalist Lee Jackson. (Who, though interesting vocally, certainly was no Greg Lake.)
Mildly Embarrassing Moment Of The Week:
A security guard at Barnes and Noble spying me looking at a Teen Beat magazine Hilary Duff exclusive.
Currently Reading: A History Of The American People, by Paul Johnson
Not to be confused with Howard Zinn's America-hating, agit-prop tome, this comprehensive 1000 page history is quite honest, exceptionally researched, and extraordinarily incisive. It also forces one to continually rethink and re-evaluate how we arrived at this point in American history. It also has reminded me of how thoroughly deficient American history is taught in schools.
9/11/05
I thought about posting my experiences that day, as I was living in Manhattan at the time and worked in Chelsea as well, thus giving me a pretty close view of WTC collapse. Four years past, I figured I would be able to revisit it and get it all down "on paper", but I can't. Not yet. Maybe never.
I will say this, however. For those of us that lived in Manhattan in the months following 9/11/01 experienced things that those outside of the city never did. For months, we caught the smell of cordite and other burnt building materials every time the wind blew north from downtown. The air was so thick with dust and debris the night of 9/11 that one could cut the air with the back of one's hand. Posters of the missing popped up all over the city; after a few weeks of seeing them, I started to remember their names and their faces. I still remember many of them. An aid station was set up at the East 26th St. Armory. I usually took the bus to work (I lived in 39th St. and Lex and worked on 23rd and 6th) down Lexington; it passed the armory every day. The walls of the armory were pasted with posters of the missing, and the building was teeming with their relatives. For a time, I stopped taking the bus and took cabs to work, and advised the cabbie to avoid 26th and Lex. I couldn't bear to witness it anymore. A few people in my building on 39th St. thought I had gotten killed. One of the doormen in my former building had told some of my fellow tenants that "the hockey guy" hadn't come home that afternoon and in all likelihood was lost. (I used to go up and down the elevator at all hours of the day and night with sticks and hockey bag in tow on my way to and fro games of the roller and ice kind; I became known as "the hockey guy" throughout the building.) It turned out I wasn't the only "hockey guy" in the building. A fellow on the 10th floor of my building was also a practicing hockey player; I lived on the 9th floor, so that made us even easier to confuse with one another. He was also a trader at Cantor Fitzgerald. And he never did come home. A young African-American doctor who lived in the building and that I was friendly with approached me about two weeks later. "I thought you were dead!" he said. I asked what had ever given him that idea. He told me that the doormen had said "the hockey guy" had gotten killed. Two or three other tenants in my building had thought the same thing and subsequently approached me to say how glad they were that I was alive. It was a strange experience to be confused with the dead.
There's considerably more to write about, but it's still a bit raw to me so I'll defer. What I can say is that I'm extraordinarily thankful to be alive, thankful that no one amongst my family or friends that lost their lives (although there were a few close ones, among them a FDNY friend of mine who nearly had WTC north tower collapse on top of him), and more than anything, that I am a citizen of the United States, and a Western man. In this civilization that we live in, despite some of the more insidious attacks of its critics, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not empty propaganda. 9/11/01 demonstrated that to me in stark relief. Life is cheap in most of the rest of the world, liberty is non-existent, and as for the happiness part, that's a luxury most will never come close to experiencing in this world. On the morning of September 11th of 2001, I was in Manhattan, in the United States of America. I witnessed America at its best when things were close to being at their worst. On one of America's worst days in its history, I wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere else in the world but in New York City.
I will say this, however. For those of us that lived in Manhattan in the months following 9/11/01 experienced things that those outside of the city never did. For months, we caught the smell of cordite and other burnt building materials every time the wind blew north from downtown. The air was so thick with dust and debris the night of 9/11 that one could cut the air with the back of one's hand. Posters of the missing popped up all over the city; after a few weeks of seeing them, I started to remember their names and their faces. I still remember many of them. An aid station was set up at the East 26th St. Armory. I usually took the bus to work (I lived in 39th St. and Lex and worked on 23rd and 6th) down Lexington; it passed the armory every day. The walls of the armory were pasted with posters of the missing, and the building was teeming with their relatives. For a time, I stopped taking the bus and took cabs to work, and advised the cabbie to avoid 26th and Lex. I couldn't bear to witness it anymore. A few people in my building on 39th St. thought I had gotten killed. One of the doormen in my former building had told some of my fellow tenants that "the hockey guy" hadn't come home that afternoon and in all likelihood was lost. (I used to go up and down the elevator at all hours of the day and night with sticks and hockey bag in tow on my way to and fro games of the roller and ice kind; I became known as "the hockey guy" throughout the building.) It turned out I wasn't the only "hockey guy" in the building. A fellow on the 10th floor of my building was also a practicing hockey player; I lived on the 9th floor, so that made us even easier to confuse with one another. He was also a trader at Cantor Fitzgerald. And he never did come home. A young African-American doctor who lived in the building and that I was friendly with approached me about two weeks later. "I thought you were dead!" he said. I asked what had ever given him that idea. He told me that the doormen had said "the hockey guy" had gotten killed. Two or three other tenants in my building had thought the same thing and subsequently approached me to say how glad they were that I was alive. It was a strange experience to be confused with the dead.
There's considerably more to write about, but it's still a bit raw to me so I'll defer. What I can say is that I'm extraordinarily thankful to be alive, thankful that no one amongst my family or friends that lost their lives (although there were a few close ones, among them a FDNY friend of mine who nearly had WTC north tower collapse on top of him), and more than anything, that I am a citizen of the United States, and a Western man. In this civilization that we live in, despite some of the more insidious attacks of its critics, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not empty propaganda. 9/11/01 demonstrated that to me in stark relief. Life is cheap in most of the rest of the world, liberty is non-existent, and as for the happiness part, that's a luxury most will never come close to experiencing in this world. On the morning of September 11th of 2001, I was in Manhattan, in the United States of America. I witnessed America at its best when things were close to being at their worst. On one of America's worst days in its history, I wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere else in the world but in New York City.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Join A Cult!
No, I wasn't speaking of Islam. This one makes infinitely more sense and will grant you everlasting peace, enlightenment, and love. At least that's what they claim.
Friday, September 09, 2005
There Once Was A Note....
I still love this song. I was reminded of how much last night. From a lyrical standpoint it also captures the essence of the love of music about as well as anything I've ever read. Pete Townshend, for all of his lunacy, destruction, outrageous comments that veer from the egregiously arrogant to the vehemently self-loathing, still amazes me with the depth of his talent. I wish this song got more credit (and radio-play) than it does. It think it is The Who at their best.
Pure And Easy
There once was a note,
pure and easy,
Playing so free, like a breath rippling by.
The note is eternal,
I hear it,
it sees me,
Forever we blend it,
forever we die.
I listened and I heard music in a word,
And words when you played your guitar,
The noise that I was hearing was a million people cheering,
And a child flew past me riding in a star.
As people assemble,
Civilization is trying to find a new way to die,
But killing is really merely scene changer,
All men are bored with other men's lies.
I listened and I heard music in a word,
And words when you played your guitar,
The noise that I was hearing was a million people cheering,
And a child flew past me riding in a star.
Gas on the hillside, oil in the teacup,
Watch all the chords of life lose their joy,
Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness,
The note that began all can also destroy.
We all know success when we all find our own dreams,
And our love is enough to knock down any walls,
And the future's been seen as men try to realize,
The simple secret of the note in us all.
I listened and I heard music in a word,
And words when you played your guitar,
The noise that I was hearing was a million people cheering
,And a child flew past me riding in a star.
There once was a note,
pure and easy,
Playing so free, like a breath rippling by.
There once was a note, listen...
Pure And Easy
There once was a note,
pure and easy,
Playing so free, like a breath rippling by.
The note is eternal,
I hear it,
it sees me,
Forever we blend it,
forever we die.
I listened and I heard music in a word,
And words when you played your guitar,
The noise that I was hearing was a million people cheering,
And a child flew past me riding in a star.
As people assemble,
Civilization is trying to find a new way to die,
But killing is really merely scene changer,
All men are bored with other men's lies.
I listened and I heard music in a word,
And words when you played your guitar,
The noise that I was hearing was a million people cheering,
And a child flew past me riding in a star.
Gas on the hillside, oil in the teacup,
Watch all the chords of life lose their joy,
Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness,
The note that began all can also destroy.
We all know success when we all find our own dreams,
And our love is enough to knock down any walls,
And the future's been seen as men try to realize,
The simple secret of the note in us all.
I listened and I heard music in a word,
And words when you played your guitar,
The noise that I was hearing was a million people cheering
,And a child flew past me riding in a star.
There once was a note,
pure and easy,
Playing so free, like a breath rippling by.
There once was a note, listen...
Scott Stevens
Back in 1984, my brother and I decamped outside of the Nassau Coliseum from about 5:00 am to snare Islander playoff tickets. I remember the day very well, as it was early spring, and there was still a nip in the air. Other people that were there were obviously more experienced than the two of us when it came to waiting on line for Islander playoff tickets, as there were a plethora of people who brought coolers full of refreshments and snacks, which they gulped down whilst seated on beach chairs and the like. Other people, in the spirit of the game, played roller hockey. As for the two of us, we did the best we could to kill time 'til we got to the window. Eventually, after five or six hours of waiting, we scored tickets to game 5 of the divisional finals. Who it would be against was anyone's guess, and there was no assurance that there would even be a game 5 if the Islanders were to sweep. But we had 'em, and the rest was up to fate. If the Isles didn't win against the Rangers in the preliminary round, or if the Isles swept the Caps (or vice-versa), the tickets were useless.
As it happened, the Islanders beat the Rangers in the preliminary best-of-five series. It was a hell of a series, that one, ended in overtime by defenseman Kenny Morrows lame shot from the right point that strangely went through a tangle of five or six sets of legs to find its way behind Ranger goalie Glen Hanlon. (That series was still to this day one of the greatest play-off series I've ever witnessed.) In the other area of the Patrick Division (oh how I wish they've revert back to the old division and conference names), the Washington Capitals knocked off perennial also-rans the Philly Flyers. All that had to happen for our game 5 tickets to be validated was for the Islanders to drop one to the Caps. They obliged. And so the game was on.
The Capitals back then were a decent team, consisting of a very speedy Mike Gartner on right wing and Bobby Carpenter, the first American kid to get drafted out of high-school (and no.1 at that), at center. But the real force of the Caps were two defensemen: Rod Langway, and a kid that was either a rookie or a sophomore (don't remember exactly) Scott Stevens. Langway was an American player brought up through the Canadiens system (he won a Cup with them in '79) and was a rock on defense. Stevens was his young protege: stout, huge shoulders, punishing checker, an incendiary personality on the ice and a world-class brawler. Even then it was said that he would be one of the greats if he could keep his temper in check and concentrate on playing hockey. Eventually, he did.
The Islanders beat the Caps in five games, and it was thrilling at that young age to witness play-off hockey in person. To this day, despite dozens and dozens of hockey games that I've attended, I don't think I've ever been back to see a play-off game. The Islanders would eventually go to the semi-finals against the Canadiens, knocking them off in six, before the resurgent Edmonton Oilers knocked the Isles off in five to win their first Stanley Cup. But Stevens had made an impression on me that one Isles/Caps game. He was punishing and intimidating on the blue line, and he was certainly a guy to watch for the future.
Stevens eventually wound up on the New Jersey Devils by way of the St. Louis Blues. By the time he got to the Devils, he'd harnessed his fiery personality enough to concentrate on pummelling opposing players with bodychecks instead of his fists (though he never fully stopped beating the crap out of people). He became the cornerstone of the Devils franchise and epitomized everything that organization stood for. Stevens was their man, the best of a great crop of defensemen, and in all likelihood was the most intimidating defensemen I've ever personally watched. His open ice hit on Eric Lindros, who was no shrinking violet, showed how devasting a presence Stevens was.
The Devils will miss Stevens presence. So will hockey. Stevens walks away from the game with three Stanley Cups, a Conn Smyth Trophy (playoff MVP), and eleven All-Star Game appearances.
As it happened, the Islanders beat the Rangers in the preliminary best-of-five series. It was a hell of a series, that one, ended in overtime by defenseman Kenny Morrows lame shot from the right point that strangely went through a tangle of five or six sets of legs to find its way behind Ranger goalie Glen Hanlon. (That series was still to this day one of the greatest play-off series I've ever witnessed.) In the other area of the Patrick Division (oh how I wish they've revert back to the old division and conference names), the Washington Capitals knocked off perennial also-rans the Philly Flyers. All that had to happen for our game 5 tickets to be validated was for the Islanders to drop one to the Caps. They obliged. And so the game was on.
The Capitals back then were a decent team, consisting of a very speedy Mike Gartner on right wing and Bobby Carpenter, the first American kid to get drafted out of high-school (and no.1 at that), at center. But the real force of the Caps were two defensemen: Rod Langway, and a kid that was either a rookie or a sophomore (don't remember exactly) Scott Stevens. Langway was an American player brought up through the Canadiens system (he won a Cup with them in '79) and was a rock on defense. Stevens was his young protege: stout, huge shoulders, punishing checker, an incendiary personality on the ice and a world-class brawler. Even then it was said that he would be one of the greats if he could keep his temper in check and concentrate on playing hockey. Eventually, he did.
The Islanders beat the Caps in five games, and it was thrilling at that young age to witness play-off hockey in person. To this day, despite dozens and dozens of hockey games that I've attended, I don't think I've ever been back to see a play-off game. The Islanders would eventually go to the semi-finals against the Canadiens, knocking them off in six, before the resurgent Edmonton Oilers knocked the Isles off in five to win their first Stanley Cup. But Stevens had made an impression on me that one Isles/Caps game. He was punishing and intimidating on the blue line, and he was certainly a guy to watch for the future.
Stevens eventually wound up on the New Jersey Devils by way of the St. Louis Blues. By the time he got to the Devils, he'd harnessed his fiery personality enough to concentrate on pummelling opposing players with bodychecks instead of his fists (though he never fully stopped beating the crap out of people). He became the cornerstone of the Devils franchise and epitomized everything that organization stood for. Stevens was their man, the best of a great crop of defensemen, and in all likelihood was the most intimidating defensemen I've ever personally watched. His open ice hit on Eric Lindros, who was no shrinking violet, showed how devasting a presence Stevens was.
The Devils will miss Stevens presence. So will hockey. Stevens walks away from the game with three Stanley Cups, a Conn Smyth Trophy (playoff MVP), and eleven All-Star Game appearances.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
No Traction Whatsoever
Latest poll taken in regards to Katrina by Gallup:
Who's To Blame? (Results)
--No One: 38%
--State/Local Officials: 25%
--Federal Agencies: 18%
--President Bush: 13%
I've stated ad nauseum that the attacks on Bush in regards to this hurricane disaster were patently unfair, obscenely partisan, and just plain wrong. I'll also reiterate for any of those that read this blog what I wrote in an earlier entry: when this whole thing is hashed out, it will be the local and state authorities of New Orleans and Louisiana on the whole, respectively, who are going to take the political beating, for ultimately, under our system of federalism, they're responsible for their own backyard.
Who's To Blame? (Results)
--No One: 38%
--State/Local Officials: 25%
--Federal Agencies: 18%
--President Bush: 13%
I've stated ad nauseum that the attacks on Bush in regards to this hurricane disaster were patently unfair, obscenely partisan, and just plain wrong. I'll also reiterate for any of those that read this blog what I wrote in an earlier entry: when this whole thing is hashed out, it will be the local and state authorities of New Orleans and Louisiana on the whole, respectively, who are going to take the political beating, for ultimately, under our system of federalism, they're responsible for their own backyard.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
The Saturation Point
I've reached it. I knew I would. The Hurricane Katrina coverage, the absolute hatred of the Left and their blame-game, the endless op-eds....I'm done. At some point I would imagine when the postscript of this debacle is written, they'll be plenty of blame to go 'round. But for now, Bush is taking almost all of it, quite unfairly and due to abject ignorance on the part of his critics. Worse than all this is that while the crisis was still very critical, all the Left could do was open up the guns and attack Bush for his admittedly flat-footed response to this disaster, conveniently leaving out the fact that the federal government nor its agencies are rigged to be "first responders". Those close to the situation are supposed to be those that are supposed to be on the scene first. As the panic-stricken and incompetent Mayor Nagin and Gov. Blanco dithered, there was no federal back-up to save their bacon. Thus, Bush has received the lion's share of the blame for the failure to act on matters that were the duties of the local and state authorities. I believe in time, when this investigation is concluded, Nagin and Blanco will get some serious political (and justified) political whiplash. The vehemence with which the Left has attacked Bush and conveniently left out an incompetent, Democratic black mayor and a choke-artist, Democratic woman governor is almost comical were it not so unbelievable. Bush will, without a doubt, lose some political capital over this, and on some level, rightly so. FEMA wasn't there quick enough, and again, his rhetoric and that of his administration officials did not instill confidence that they were on the ball. But if one cannot contrast Nagin or Blanco with Giuliani and Pataki (and I think one could, mind), one could certainly contrast the behavior and the results of Nagin and Blanco to, say, Haley Barbour of Mississipi, who got hit harder by the hurricane than Louisiana did. Biloxi, Mississippi has been wiped clear off the map, yet the chaos that followed New Orleans, admittedly a bigger city, did not appear in Biloxi, Ms., or even Mobile, Alabama, which also got hit hard. New Orleans and Louisiana on the whole are not the only places that got walloped by this hurricane, but they're clearly the ones where the organizational abilities, as well as the crisis management of the local officials, was superior. In the end, the Left have landed some pretty nasty punches on Bush, some of which were justified, most of which weren't. But as I've said in an earlier post, when this is all hashed out, the state and local authorities in New Orleans and the greater state of Louisiana are going to have a lot to answer for. And screaming "racism!" or "witch-hunt" isn't going to protect them. The manner in which our government is based on is federalism; the states and cities take care of their back-yard, and the feds only come in in the most extreme circumstances, and only after the fact. A president can't send out the National Guard of any state unless it is under the most extreme circumstances (and would have to invoke the Insurrection Act to deputize the National Guard, which has only happened once, during the Civil War; one can only imagine the cries of "fascism!" if Bush did that. Proof once again that he's subject to intense criticism no matter what), and he can't call out the buses to evacuate a city. The comedy of errors on this chain didn't begin at the White House, it ended there. It began in New Orleans and Baton Rouge.
I'll try not to blog on this further. It's too excrutiating.
I'll try not to blog on this further. It's too excrutiating.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
The Ugly Truth
Columnist Errol Louis has written a scathing yet even-handed piece on the current crisis. Worth reading.
Bubbling up from the flood that destroyed New Orleans are images, beamed around the world, of America's original and continuing sin: the shabby, contemptuous treatment this country metes out, decade after decade, to poor people in general and the descendants of African slaves in particular. The world sees New Orleans burning and dying today, but the televised anarchy - the shooting and looting, needless deaths, helpless rage and maddening governmental incompetence - was centuries in the making.
To the casual viewer, the situation is an incomprehensible mess that raises questions about the intelligence, sanity and moral worth of those trapped in the city. Why didn't those people evacuate before the hurricane? Why don't they just walk out of town now? And why should anyone care about people who are stealing and fighting the police?
That hard, unsympathetic view is the traditional American response to the poverty, ignorance and rage that afflict many of us whose great-great-grandparents once made up the captive African slave labor pool. In far too many cities, including New Orleans, the marching orders on the front lines of American race relations are to control and contain the very poor in ghettos as cheaply as possible; ignore them completely if possible; and call in the troops if the brutes get out of line.
By almost every statistical measure, New Orleans is a bad place to be poor. Half the city's households make less than $28,000 a year, and 28% of the population lives in poverty.
In the late 1990s, the state's school systems ranked dead last in the nation in the number of computers per student (1 per 88), and Louisiana has the nation's second-highest percentage of adults who never finished high school. By the state's own measure, 47% of the public schools in New Orleans rank as "academically unacceptable."
And Louisiana is the only one of the 50 states where the state legislature doesn't allocate money to pay for the legal defense of indigent defendants. The Associated Press reported this year that it's not unusual for poor people charged with crimes to stay in jail for nine months before getting a lawyer appointed.
These government failures are not merely a matter of incompetence. Louisiana and New Orleans have a long, well-known reputation for corruption: as former congressman Billy Tauzin once put it, "half of Louisiana is under water and the other half is under indictment."
That's putting it mildly. Adjusted for population size, the state ranks third in the number of elected officials convicted of crimes (Mississippi is No. 1). Recent scandals include the conviction of 14 state judges and an FBI raid on the business and personal files of a Louisiana congressman.
In 1991, a notoriously corrupt Democrat named Edwin Edwards ran for governor against Republican David Duke, a former head of the Ku Klux Klan. Edwards, whose winning campaign included bumper stickers saying "Elect the Crook," is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence for taking bribes from casino owners. Duke recently completed his own prison term for tax fraud.
The rot included the New Orleans Police Department, which in the 1990s had the dubious distinction of being the nation's most corrupt police force and the least effective: the city had the highest murder rate in America. More than 50 officers were eventually convicted of crimes including murder, rape and robbery; two are currently on Death Row.
The decision to subject an entire population to poverty, ignorance, injustice and government corruption as a way of life has its ugly moments, as the world is now seeing. New Orleans officials issued an almost cynical evacuation order in a city where they know full well that thousands have no car, no money for airfare or an interstate bus, no credit cards for hotels, and therefore no way to leave town before the deadly storm and flood arrived.
The authorities provided no transportation out of the danger zone, apparently figuring the neglected thousands would somehow weather the storm in their uninsured, low-lying shacks and public housing projects. The poor were expected to remain invisible at the bottom of the pecking order and somehow weather the storm.
But the flood confounded the plan, and the world began to see a tide of human misery rising from the water - ragged, sick, desperate and disorderly. Some foraged for food, some took advantage of the chaos to commit crimes. All in all, they acted exactly the way you could predict people would act who have been locked up in a ghetto for generations.
The world also saw the breezy indifference with which government officials treated these tens of thousands of sick and dying citizens, even as the scope of the disaster became clear. President Bush initially shunned the Gulf Coast and headed to political fund-raisers in the West.
That left matters in the bumbling hands of the director of emergency management, Michael Brown, who ranks No. 1 on the list of officials who ought to be fired when the crisis has passed. Even as local officials were publicly reporting assaults, fires and bedlam at local hospitals, Brown took to the airwaves to declare that "things are going well" as mayhem engulfed the city. When asked about the rising death toll, Brown attributed it to "people who did not heed the advance warnings." Brown's smug ignorance of the conditions of the place he was tasked to save became the final door slammed on the trap that tens of thousands of the city's poorest found themselves.
The challenge for America is to remember the faces of the evacuees who will surely be ushered back into a black hole of public indifference as soon as the White House and local officials can manage it. While pledging ourselves to remember their mistreatment and fight for their cause, we should also be sure to cast a searching, skeptical eye on the money that Bush has pledged for rebuilding.
Ten billion dollars are about to pass into the sticky hands of politicians in the No. 1 and No. 3 most corrupt states in America. Worried about looting? You ain't seen nothing yet.
Bubbling up from the flood that destroyed New Orleans are images, beamed around the world, of America's original and continuing sin: the shabby, contemptuous treatment this country metes out, decade after decade, to poor people in general and the descendants of African slaves in particular. The world sees New Orleans burning and dying today, but the televised anarchy - the shooting and looting, needless deaths, helpless rage and maddening governmental incompetence - was centuries in the making.
To the casual viewer, the situation is an incomprehensible mess that raises questions about the intelligence, sanity and moral worth of those trapped in the city. Why didn't those people evacuate before the hurricane? Why don't they just walk out of town now? And why should anyone care about people who are stealing and fighting the police?
That hard, unsympathetic view is the traditional American response to the poverty, ignorance and rage that afflict many of us whose great-great-grandparents once made up the captive African slave labor pool. In far too many cities, including New Orleans, the marching orders on the front lines of American race relations are to control and contain the very poor in ghettos as cheaply as possible; ignore them completely if possible; and call in the troops if the brutes get out of line.
By almost every statistical measure, New Orleans is a bad place to be poor. Half the city's households make less than $28,000 a year, and 28% of the population lives in poverty.
In the late 1990s, the state's school systems ranked dead last in the nation in the number of computers per student (1 per 88), and Louisiana has the nation's second-highest percentage of adults who never finished high school. By the state's own measure, 47% of the public schools in New Orleans rank as "academically unacceptable."
And Louisiana is the only one of the 50 states where the state legislature doesn't allocate money to pay for the legal defense of indigent defendants. The Associated Press reported this year that it's not unusual for poor people charged with crimes to stay in jail for nine months before getting a lawyer appointed.
These government failures are not merely a matter of incompetence. Louisiana and New Orleans have a long, well-known reputation for corruption: as former congressman Billy Tauzin once put it, "half of Louisiana is under water and the other half is under indictment."
That's putting it mildly. Adjusted for population size, the state ranks third in the number of elected officials convicted of crimes (Mississippi is No. 1). Recent scandals include the conviction of 14 state judges and an FBI raid on the business and personal files of a Louisiana congressman.
In 1991, a notoriously corrupt Democrat named Edwin Edwards ran for governor against Republican David Duke, a former head of the Ku Klux Klan. Edwards, whose winning campaign included bumper stickers saying "Elect the Crook," is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence for taking bribes from casino owners. Duke recently completed his own prison term for tax fraud.
The rot included the New Orleans Police Department, which in the 1990s had the dubious distinction of being the nation's most corrupt police force and the least effective: the city had the highest murder rate in America. More than 50 officers were eventually convicted of crimes including murder, rape and robbery; two are currently on Death Row.
The decision to subject an entire population to poverty, ignorance, injustice and government corruption as a way of life has its ugly moments, as the world is now seeing. New Orleans officials issued an almost cynical evacuation order in a city where they know full well that thousands have no car, no money for airfare or an interstate bus, no credit cards for hotels, and therefore no way to leave town before the deadly storm and flood arrived.
The authorities provided no transportation out of the danger zone, apparently figuring the neglected thousands would somehow weather the storm in their uninsured, low-lying shacks and public housing projects. The poor were expected to remain invisible at the bottom of the pecking order and somehow weather the storm.
But the flood confounded the plan, and the world began to see a tide of human misery rising from the water - ragged, sick, desperate and disorderly. Some foraged for food, some took advantage of the chaos to commit crimes. All in all, they acted exactly the way you could predict people would act who have been locked up in a ghetto for generations.
The world also saw the breezy indifference with which government officials treated these tens of thousands of sick and dying citizens, even as the scope of the disaster became clear. President Bush initially shunned the Gulf Coast and headed to political fund-raisers in the West.
That left matters in the bumbling hands of the director of emergency management, Michael Brown, who ranks No. 1 on the list of officials who ought to be fired when the crisis has passed. Even as local officials were publicly reporting assaults, fires and bedlam at local hospitals, Brown took to the airwaves to declare that "things are going well" as mayhem engulfed the city. When asked about the rising death toll, Brown attributed it to "people who did not heed the advance warnings." Brown's smug ignorance of the conditions of the place he was tasked to save became the final door slammed on the trap that tens of thousands of the city's poorest found themselves.
The challenge for America is to remember the faces of the evacuees who will surely be ushered back into a black hole of public indifference as soon as the White House and local officials can manage it. While pledging ourselves to remember their mistreatment and fight for their cause, we should also be sure to cast a searching, skeptical eye on the money that Bush has pledged for rebuilding.
Ten billion dollars are about to pass into the sticky hands of politicians in the No. 1 and No. 3 most corrupt states in America. Worried about looting? You ain't seen nothing yet.
Thoughts on N.O.
To date, most of the op-eds and blogger entries I've read about the situation have been pretty much useless. Filled with overwrought emotions and devoid of any constructive content, it hasn't been a very good week for the Fourth Estate, at least as far as the talking heads are concerned. Of course, the Bush-hating loonies have been barking with considerably more volume this month than they did last month during Cindy Sheehan's publicity stunt. Not too deep below the surface, they're rejoicing over the tragedy of New Orleans, for it gives them the ultimate cudgel with which to beat Bush over the head with. That is no surprise, but it is stunning the speed and veracity with which their multi-pronged attacks have arrived at Bush's head. The vast majority of these attacks are merely attributable to the left-wing psychosis that the loony left has been in the grips of since Gore lost the election in 2000, though the roots of this ever-elevating psychosis probably date back to Reagan's election in 1980, and in all likelihood, intensified with the implosion of the Soviet Union. We're talking twenty five years of anger, frustration, and thwarted ambition that the left must contend with. However, New Orleans has provided them with what they feel to be is the ultimate poker hand. It gives them a race card, a poverty card, a "global warming" card, and ultimately, a card which shows Bush's lack of caring and compassion for all of the above, as well as a card they feel shows Bush's ineptitude regarding the crisis at hand. The loons on the left blame this debacle 100% on Bush, discounting the lack of proper plan follow-through on the part of the colossally inept mayor Ray Nagin, not to mention a wholly absent and panic-striken governor Kathleen Blanco. (Not terribly surprising, they're both Democrats. Shocker.) Neither one of them have shown any semblance of leaderhip since the hurricane, and though many may say that there's no comparing this to 9/11 (which is true, the magnitude of this catastrophe is much worse), it is more than right to compare and contrast the leadership styles and the grace under pressure that George Pataki and specifically, Rudy Giuliani displayed, versus the complete bumbling, panic-striken behavior of Mayor Ray Nagin and Gov. Blanco. It wasn't Bush who failed to provide transportation out of New Orleans for the black folks who had no other means of escaping, it was Nagin. It wasn't Bush who failed to carry out an already pre-determined plan for the evacuation of New Orleans; it was Nagin. It wasn't Bush who failed to activate the Louisiana National Guard PRIOR to the Hurricane; it was Gov. Blanco who failed to do that. That said, I don't exonerate Bush of responsibility for this debacle. His initial response was flaccid and hardly instilled confidence. FEMA's response has essentially been crappy in the early going, but more than anything else, Bush's initial response was not forceful enough, and it demanded some kind of Churchillian, dare I say, Giuliani-like commanding response. Times like we've just had this past week demand rhetorical boldness, and Bush did not show that. They demand bold initial acts, which might be less than truly effective, yet send the message, "I'm in control here." That did not happen. Bush might or might not recover from his initial flat-footedness this past week. That remains to be seen. Thus far, Nagin and Blanco have gotten a pass from the mainstream media (though not the blogosphere) for their complete and utter failure to lead. But their day of reckoning will come. Hopefully someone will get the news to Nagin, decamped as he is in Baton Rouge.
A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words
I'm sure Mayor Ray Nagin would prefer you not see it, however. Some photos I've seen have counted as many as 200 plus submerged buses. I'm sorry...getting ahead of myself. It's Bush's fault, no matter who f**cked up at the local and state level.
Ahh....leadership. The underrated attribute.
(Who here thinks Rudy Giuliani would've handled the New Orleans crisis in the same way?)
Ahh....leadership. The underrated attribute.
(Who here thinks Rudy Giuliani would've handled the New Orleans crisis in the same way?)
UNFINEST HOUR
Courtesy of David Frum:
I haven't written thus far about the New Orleans disaster. There are so many people on the spot, adding so much to genuine understanding, that it seemed an absurd waste of your time for me to add my distant words. Tonight though I was invited by the BBC to talk about the political fall-out from Katrina with Sidney Blumenthal. To prepare, I spent some hours immersing myself in the catalogue of left-wing attacks on the Bush administration.
Now let me declare at the onset: Katrina has obviously not been the finest hour of American emergency management. There may well be fault on the part of the federal government and this administration. I'm certainly open to evidence on that point.
But to review the wild, contradictory, and utterly opportunistic charges from the administration's critics is to enter a realm of madness. Some patient bloggers are responding to the charges one by one. Here is a post in reply to the charge that the levees were somehow neglected. Here is an accounting for the Louisiana National Guard: 8,000 of whom remain on duty in-state, including the Guard's most pertinent engineer group, numbering four battalions.
Here is a crushing reply to those who blame the Bush administration for hurricanes - when hurricane activity has in fact dropped since 1940. Here is one of many stories detailing how the notorious New Orleans police force led the breakdown of civic order. (For those who deplore the sharp drop-off in the flow of federal funds to Louisiana since 1999, here is a link to one important explanation: the resignation of former Speaker of the House and Appropriations Committee chairman Bob Livingston [R., La.] after Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine threatened to publish details of Livingston's marital infidelity, in order to punish Republicans for the then-looming impeachment of Bill Clinton on perjury charges.)
And yet ... and yet ... is all this really necessary? The time will come, and come very soon, when the great self-critical mechanisms of American society and government will go to work to study what went wrong. Those who deserve blame will get blame in plenty then. But now - with the dead still uncounted and unburied, with the living still struggling for refuge and help, is there not something indecent about the haste with which the American left avidly tries to turn this terrible disaster to political account?
Is there not something bizarre about their willingness to fire off accusation after accusation, each contradicting the last? The disaster was caused by the Bush administration's failure to protect the environment from global warming .... no, no, it was caused by the administration's refusal to manipulate the environment by funding more levees to control the Mississippi River .... it's Iraq, no it's budget cuts, no it's wetlands, and on and on and on.
Good God, what is wrong with these people? Will they ever learn to see somebody else's misfortune as something more than their political opportunity?
Mississippi governor Haley Barbour is right. This tragedy is bringing out the worst in many people. And I wonder, as I watch the volunteers cooking food for the houseless in the Houston Astrodome, or supplies being delivered by rescue workers who are living in cars because there is no place else for them, or the elderly being hoisted to safety - I wonder: why at a moment like this can we not live up to their generous spirit. Why can't we act first, investigate afterward, and let blame and credit be apportioned as they are due, when they are due?
I haven't written thus far about the New Orleans disaster. There are so many people on the spot, adding so much to genuine understanding, that it seemed an absurd waste of your time for me to add my distant words. Tonight though I was invited by the BBC to talk about the political fall-out from Katrina with Sidney Blumenthal. To prepare, I spent some hours immersing myself in the catalogue of left-wing attacks on the Bush administration.
Now let me declare at the onset: Katrina has obviously not been the finest hour of American emergency management. There may well be fault on the part of the federal government and this administration. I'm certainly open to evidence on that point.
But to review the wild, contradictory, and utterly opportunistic charges from the administration's critics is to enter a realm of madness. Some patient bloggers are responding to the charges one by one. Here is a post in reply to the charge that the levees were somehow neglected. Here is an accounting for the Louisiana National Guard: 8,000 of whom remain on duty in-state, including the Guard's most pertinent engineer group, numbering four battalions.
Here is a crushing reply to those who blame the Bush administration for hurricanes - when hurricane activity has in fact dropped since 1940. Here is one of many stories detailing how the notorious New Orleans police force led the breakdown of civic order. (For those who deplore the sharp drop-off in the flow of federal funds to Louisiana since 1999, here is a link to one important explanation: the resignation of former Speaker of the House and Appropriations Committee chairman Bob Livingston [R., La.] after Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine threatened to publish details of Livingston's marital infidelity, in order to punish Republicans for the then-looming impeachment of Bill Clinton on perjury charges.)
And yet ... and yet ... is all this really necessary? The time will come, and come very soon, when the great self-critical mechanisms of American society and government will go to work to study what went wrong. Those who deserve blame will get blame in plenty then. But now - with the dead still uncounted and unburied, with the living still struggling for refuge and help, is there not something indecent about the haste with which the American left avidly tries to turn this terrible disaster to political account?
Is there not something bizarre about their willingness to fire off accusation after accusation, each contradicting the last? The disaster was caused by the Bush administration's failure to protect the environment from global warming .... no, no, it was caused by the administration's refusal to manipulate the environment by funding more levees to control the Mississippi River .... it's Iraq, no it's budget cuts, no it's wetlands, and on and on and on.
Good God, what is wrong with these people? Will they ever learn to see somebody else's misfortune as something more than their political opportunity?
Mississippi governor Haley Barbour is right. This tragedy is bringing out the worst in many people. And I wonder, as I watch the volunteers cooking food for the houseless in the Houston Astrodome, or supplies being delivered by rescue workers who are living in cars because there is no place else for them, or the elderly being hoisted to safety - I wonder: why at a moment like this can we not live up to their generous spirit. Why can't we act first, investigate afterward, and let blame and credit be apportioned as they are due, when they are due?
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Jesse Jackson, Exhibiting His Usual Good Sense Of Priority
"Jackson questioned why Bush has not named blacks to top positions in the federal response to the disaster, particularly when the majority of victims remaining stranded in New Orleans are black: "How can blacks be locked out of the leadership, and trapped in the suffering?"
'It is that lack of sensitivity and compassion that represents a kind of incompetence.'
U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Russell Honore, head of the military task force overseeing operations in the three states, is black. His task force is providing search and rescue, medical help and sending supplies to the three states in support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency."
Read it all here.
'It is that lack of sensitivity and compassion that represents a kind of incompetence.'
U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Russell Honore, head of the military task force overseeing operations in the three states, is black. His task force is providing search and rescue, medical help and sending supplies to the three states in support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency."
Read it all here.
Schizophrenia and the New York Times Op-Ed Page
The New York Times gave it to the president the other day for any number of reasons. That's okay. Most of us on the right don't take the Times seriously anymore, and judging by their consistently declining readership, I don't think it is just hardcore righties like myself that find it execrable. A friend of mine on his blog wrote that this piece was "spot on" (his words). I wonder if he thought an earlier op-ed piece essentially contradicting it was also "spot on". Here are the critical excerpts of their 9/1/05 op-ed:
While our attention must now be on the Gulf Coast's most immediate needs, the nation will soon ask why New Orleans's levees remained so inadequate. Publications from the local newspaper to National Geographic have fulminated about the bad state of flood protection in this beloved city, which is below sea level. Why were developers permitted to destroy wetlands and barrier islands that could have held back the hurricane's surge? Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?
Here's what the Times had to say about the same topic back in April of this year:
Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health of America's rivers and wetlands should pay attention to a bill now before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would shovel $17 billion at the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and other water-related projects — this at a time when President Bush is asking for major cuts in Medicaid and other important domestic programs. Among these projects is a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River that has twice flunked inspection by the National Academy of Sciences... this is a bad piece of legislation.
(Provided courtesy of Donald Luskin)
While our attention must now be on the Gulf Coast's most immediate needs, the nation will soon ask why New Orleans's levees remained so inadequate. Publications from the local newspaper to National Geographic have fulminated about the bad state of flood protection in this beloved city, which is below sea level. Why were developers permitted to destroy wetlands and barrier islands that could have held back the hurricane's surge? Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?
Here's what the Times had to say about the same topic back in April of this year:
Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health of America's rivers and wetlands should pay attention to a bill now before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would shovel $17 billion at the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and other water-related projects — this at a time when President Bush is asking for major cuts in Medicaid and other important domestic programs. Among these projects is a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River that has twice flunked inspection by the National Academy of Sciences... this is a bad piece of legislation.
(Provided courtesy of Donald Luskin)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)