What the hell are you thinking?

So, we all know about the looting in New Orleans that is a result of the flooding and general despair in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In fact, were foodstuffs that are going to spoil/rot are concerned, I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, the fact that cops were watching people loot that sort of thing, so long as they would allow the cops to get drugs and first-aid items needed at shelters before the looting resumed.

The problem is these are the only things being looted. And the further problem is that there are "liberals" who are talking about how it doesn't matter that they're looting jewelry and electronics from stores and private dwellings.

They say that the looting of the non-essentials is okay, because it can be put to a "higher moral use"; implying that someone is trading a television set for food that another person has hoarded. I find that a specious argument, at best. After all, what's the hoarder's "higher moral purpose" to accepting the television in return for some food? And certainly the person receiving the food isn't getting the value of the television returned in a similar value of food.

Sure, one could argue that, because of growing scarcity, the food's value is increasing. But all the same, it's not like the hoarder's going to be able to turn that television into more food, and even if he was, somewhere along the chain you come to someone who is collecting televisions, jewelry, jeans and so on by supplying food. And when they can get to an area outside of the disaster zone, they'll be able to sell those things off; if someone doesn't whack them over the head and steal the goods that they had accumulated first.

In short, giving tacit approval to this black-market bartering of such goods whose value isn't artificially high for those whose value is (because they're essentials for survival) only adds to the misery and death. People who don't have the goods to trade on the black-market are going to starve because they don't have the goods, and the hoarders aren't going to give them food without something in trade. The hoarders become targets for other thieves. This isn't helping anyone, and it's not empowering the lower classes.

I've seen "liberals" justifying this because "those items are just going to be written off to insurance, anyhow". Again, this is a totally bullshit argument. After all, as more things have to be charged to insurance (and what use is something to a looter if it's in such poor condition that an insurance company would write it off after a family was able to get back into their house?), the more that insurance premiums will go up for everyone nationwide. And what about people who may not have things like flood insurance and/or renters' insurance? Their valuables won't be written off as insured losses, because they don't have insurance covering the losses.

In the end, stealing possessions from another person is still stealing, regardless of the wealth of the individuals involved. I can excuse it for perishable food items that are going to spoil, regardless. Better for someone to make use of those things. On the other hand, the removal of electronic goods is really despicable. It's taking advantage of a bad situation, and doing absolutely nothing to make it better. And I'm quite disgusted that there are people on my side of the political spectrum who will justify such actions with phrases like "higher moral purpose", "redistribution of wealth" and other shit. It's not like you're taking a billionaire's $250,000 yacht and turning it into cash that you can distribute among your community for everyone. It's taking a $200 TV and getting $30 worth of food in return. It's the lower-class further allowing themselves to be exploited by the dishonourable amongst them, cloaked in the rhetoric of empowerment and class justice.

This justifying from the left is some of the grossest twisting of reality I've seen occur. I'm very sad that my political stances would be associated with this crap.

A brief digression

I want to extend my best wishes to anyone/everyone who lives in the central Gulf Coast region in general, and the New Orleans area in particular, as you face down Hurricane Katrina.

The latest reports put the storm's strength at the threshold of a Category 5 storm. The central pressure is at 906mb, which is one of the lowest readings ever recorded.

New Orleans sits at 6 feet below sea level, protected by levees and floodwalls. None of these were designed to deal with an extreme storm of this nature. The extent to which it will be affected by storm surges is yet to be seen, but the impacts are expected to be fairly major. The city is under a mandatory evacuation order, and people were lining up outside of the Louisiana Superdome, an official storm shelter, hours before it was opened by the mayor.

Everyone keep New Orleans in your thoughts. The next 36 hours are going to be a wild time in the old town.

Herr Marx, someone needs to read your books

Last night on "The 700 Club" Pat Robertson made an ass of himself once again. He stated that Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, has expressed concern that the US is seeking to overthrow him or assassinate him. Well, this is true. And Chavez has reason to feel that way, since the US had already backed a couple of attempts to overthrow him in 2002. The US doesn't like Chavez because he's a populist and socialist, and he's been cozy with Fidel down in Havana.

So Robertson continues to ramble about Chavez. Says that Chavez is causing the price of oil to go up. This is so not true. The last time oil prices were up because of events in Venezuela was during the coup attempts in 2002, and it peaked around $35/barrel, then dropped back afterwards. As I have pointed out in the past, the price rises right now are more a result of King Faud's death than anything else. And the price rises due to events in Venezuela resulted from US-backed interests trying to overthrow Chavez, not because of Chavez himself.

Robertson moves on to then suggest that it would be in the best interests of the United States to overthrow or assassinate Chavez. He says that allowing Chavez to remain in power would allow a base of operations for the spread of communism and Muslim extremism over the continent (assuming Robertson meant South America). That's right, Robertson equated communism and Muslim extremism! Has Robertson ever read the Cliff's Notes of The Communist Manifesto even? Communism doesn't brook with religion of any sort, let alone religious extremism. Remember that "godless Communist" epithet of the Red Scares, Patty-boy? So why would a "communist" leader in Venezuela be okay with Muslim extremism in his country? And, likewise, the Islamists wouldn't have anything to do with communists; this is why the Mujahideen who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s became the Taliban after they got the Soviets out. They were anti-communist Muslim extremists. Fascism has long been the opposite number to communism.

Now the Venezuelan embassy has responded. The little bit of the response that I caught was pretty terse. The ambassador pointed out Robertson's political credentials; former Republican presidential candidate, strong supporter of President Bush, and someone who has taken credit for some of Bush's political successes in 2000 and 2004. The ambassador also referenced the remarks having been made on the Christian Broadcasting Network. Then he wrapped up by equating Robertson's comments to terrorism. And he's absolutely right. But, of course, it'll be different in the eyes of many Americans.

Sowing the Seeds of Democracy (or Something Like It)

It's just after midnight in Baghdad. Does Iraq have a new constitution? Well, I suppose that would depend on who you were asking.

It would seem that they do have a draft constitution. But there are issues to be worked out yet. So it's a constitution, but it's not one. It's ready, but they're giving themselves three more days to hammer out the issues that remain, so it's not ready.

This is very typical of this mess we've created. Nothing is ever as it seems, nor is it as we're told.

Appearantly, the major sticking point is over federalism. Specifically, the Kurds and the Shia want to create states (or whatever they will call the sub-units of Iraq) that will have most of the power over directing the course of affairs within their borders, with a weak federal government. The Sunnis fear that this will be used and abused in order to repress the Sunnis. The biggest concern is that the revenue from the oil wells will go to the regional governments, rather than the federal government. As most of the oil in Iraq is either in Kurdish territory to the north, or in Shia territory to the south, the Sunnis will not see much, if any, of the benefit of oil sales. As a result, the Sunni are afraid that the Kurds and the Shia will use the oil revenues to keep the Sunnis down.

The constitution will face a referendum in October. After boycotting the elections in January, the Sunnis are realizing that they need to take an active role in the referendum, lest they end up in a nation that they had no say in creating; one that they feel will work against their interests. And if the Sunnis do turn out for the referendum and vote to block the new constitution, then Iraq will be back at square-one. And will the US government continue to talk about pulling out of Iraq in 2006 if the Iraqis cannot put together a permanent method of ruling themselves? Perhaps, and if they do, it will be a bigger mistake than going into Iraq to start with.

I know that Bush is anxious to get out of Iraq because of how it affecting his poll numbers. However, as Colin Powell pointed out to him before the US went in; if you break it, you own it. We've broken Iraq, and we need to put it together and in functional condition (that means not just the government, but the infrastructure we've destroyed, as well) before we get out. Not doing so will surrender any sort of moral high ground we claimed to have in the entire Iraq situation and will further erode world opinion of the United States.

Wasting taxpayer money

The Ohio school district "report cards" came out for 2004-05 yesterday. I'm going to be using the figures linked on the front page of www.ohio.com. The Akron/Canton area has 12 charter schools, of which 8 (66.7%) were given "academic emergency" ratings (the lowest rating available; the ratings being "academic emergency", "academic watch", "continuous improvement", "effective", and "excellent", in order from worst to best), and one other was given an "academic watch" rating. Only one received an "excellent" rating, andit has the lowest enrollment of all (25 students) and is in the suburbs of Canton.

As a comparison, among Ohio's "Big 8" districts (Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo and Youngstown), only 3 (37.5%) are rated on "academic emergency" and two others on "academic watch". Akron itself is on "continuous improvement", and Canton on "academic emergency".

To refine the comparison, of the charter schools in the Akron area, 6 of 9 are on "academic emergency" while one is on "academic watch", one on "continuous improvement" and one on "effective". That means of 9 charter schools around Akron, only one had a better rating than the public schools did. For Canton, there are 3 charter schools. Of those, there is the one rated "excellent", and the other two are rated on "academic emergency", which means one is better than the public schools, and the other two are worse.

Why should our tax money be funding vouchers to send kids to these schools when they test WORSE than the public schools they're supposed to be superior to?

Something's rotten in the state of Ohio

Governor Taft is up on four misdemeanor charges for ethics violations. The charges were announced at a joint press conference held by the Democratic city prosecutor and Republican county prosecutor. There are only four charges since the law only allowed one charge for each year of unreported gifts and outings. Among the received gifts that the governor didn't report were approximately 50 rounds of golf at various private golf clubs, tickets to Columbus Blue Jackets games, and various other gifts.

This makes Taft the first Ohio governor charged with crimes of any sort while in office. This in over 200 years of statehood (and going back 218 years to the first territorial governor). And he's the latest in a line of Taft Administration officials to be brought up on charges related to unreported gifts and various graft and corruption in the last three years. We're stuck with this guy as our governor until January 2007, at this point. He refuses to resign, and the charges he is facing only carry fines as penalties, and no jail time.

In reality, I'm happy that he's not resigning and won't be forced to. It would be awful if he could gracefully back out of this. First of all, that would allow the GOP the opportunity to distance themselves from this administration. Also, the current Lieutenant Governor, an appointee, is Bruce Johnson. He was a state representative or senator from the Columbus area when I was in grad school, and he was running for city prosecutor when I met him. He was on a COTA bus I was taking (to a meeting with a Democratic candidate for a different office), where he shook hands and passed out campaign literature. He just gave me this really weird vibe when meeting him. Then I looked at the literature and about gagged on the "family" and "tough on crime" themes contained therein. And I've found that Republican prosecutors in college towns result in crackdowns on underage drinking that lead to high conviction rates while real crime is ignored.

So, between not wanting "Governor Johnson" and not wanting the GOP to be able to distance themselves from this mess over the next year, I'm glad Taft is going to fight this. It's not like he can screw up this state, or its economy, any more than he has.

Of being busy and a world gone mad

I'm very sorry that I've not posted recently. Immediately after my last post world events had slowed enough that I didn't feel there was anything that I really wanted to comment on. Then August began, and all heck began to break loose.

On the first of the month there was a personal matter than arose, and as a result I didn't get to make my daily internet rounds. That set me behind on my reading and getting up-to-date, and I only have caught up in the last couple of days. And there are so many things that I'd like to comment on right now that I'm a bit overwhelmed about where to begin. That being said, I'm going to make some brief comments and hopefully I'll flesh things out in the coming days.

The Death of King Faud - This happened on the first of the month as well. No, this wasn't my personal matter. *laughs* But in the five or so rotations of Headline News I'd seen that day, I did begin to feel a personal attachment to the story. Now, I knew the moment I heard the news that it meant that gas wasn't going to see the cheap side of the $2/gal mark in Ohio for quite a while, if ever again. But the news people were trying to paint a rosy picture. They were talking up how Faud hadn't been in power for years because of a stroke, that Prince Abdullah had really been in power, so nothing was really going to change. I thought differently. Even if Faud was only a figurehead, and Abdullah really had been running the show, the people were going to see the death of Faud as a chance to change the monarchy. And it seems that there is some unrest underway in Saudi Arabia because, lo and behold, people are seeing this as an opportunity for change. As a result, oil prices are setting new record-highs each day, and the weekend price hike is seeing prices at $2.559/gal here.

The Taft Administration - This has more pratfalls and jokes than a 1975 episode of Saturday Night. The Workers' Compensation fund is invested to the tune of about $30 million in rare coins that then go missing. More money from the same fund is invested in stocks and bonds that perform well below what the rest of the market is doing. The Chief of Staff has to resign because he spent a week of vacation in the Florida vacation home of a contributor to the party without declaring it as a gift equal to the value of one week's rental at a comparable vacation home. The governor himself is now embroiled in a scandal regarding rounds of golf at some of the most prestigious of Ohio's private golf clubs. The governor's approval rating was down at 19% about a month ago. Can it get any worse? Maybe if statewide unemployment hit double-digits, but I'm not even sure about that.

Hillary 2008 - There's been more speculation about the "inevitability" of Hillary Clinton getting the Democratic nomination in 2008. I've been saying "dear god, no" about the possibility of Ms. Clinton being a candidate since 2000. She will lose in a general election. I have no doubt about this. This is the worst possible thing that could happen to the Democrats.

Cindy Sheehan - The right wing is painting this poor woman as a traitor and as dishonouring the memory of her son who was killed in Iraq. This is awful, because all the woman wants is for the president to talk to her and explain to her just why it was that her son had go to Iraq and die five days into his tour.

Ohio Marines in Iraq- Two dozen Ohio Marine Reservists have been killed in the last week and a half. This is a state that had overwhelmingly supported the war. That support is evaporating. The memorial that is materializing at Rickenbacker Airbase/Airport is a testament to this. I feel badly for the families who have been touched by this. I appreciate the sacrifice made by the Marines. I just wish that the sacrifice hadn't been asked of them.

Tom DeLay - His pal, Jack Abramoff, has been indicted. Can charges against the House Majority Leader be far behind? We can hope.