Going Nostalgic

Remember the 1980's? Reagan's decade? MTV and pastels? A time when many of the technologies we take for granted were first market (like PC's, VCR's, cell phones, video game consoles, etc)?

According to conventional wisdom, we should be remembering the 80's. Because according to this doctrine, we must celebrate the decade which was two decades ago.

But why must we? If things are going so good, why do we need to look back?

I will give a little history lesson here.

Americans generally were not a nostalgic people. We looked ahead. Europe looked back to the "good ole days" which was sometime in the thirteenth century, when there were castles, knights, cathedrals, wizards, warlocks, knomes, etc. We were looking west, toward the frontier, to look for a way to develop it.

We kept looking ahead until the 1970's. Sometime around 1972, America had multiple convulsions that shocked those who were raising kids - those who graduated from high school before 1964. These people looked toward the days before the protests, the Vietnam war, the government scandals, the sex-drugs-rocknroll, the vocifirous leftwing radicalism (in all it's manifestations), the terrorism, the hippies. The 1950's began to look good compared to the 1960's, and many people wished to go back in time.

American Grafitti is probably the one of the most influential movies of all time. While it is set ten years before, it was largely about the culture before all this stuff came up. People wanted more. Hence, Happy Days, Oldies stations, collectors cars. During the 1970's, the 1950's were in vogue.

The 1950's never went away in American mythology. Happy Days had three spin-off series, and lasted until the mid 1980's (it went into the 1960's, before all that stuff happened. Imagine if it went into 1968 or 1969 - would Fonzie haved embraced the hippie culture?). Oldies stations lasted a long, long, time. A '57 Chevy is one of the most sought-after cars today.

When the 1980's came up, Reagan got elected. Another generation got disaffected. They looked back to their good ole days, when they were hippies who protested the war, engaged in lots of sex-drugs-rocknroll, as well as revolutionary activity. This looked much better to them than Reagan. So they put their culture on a pedestal, where they had their classic rock stations, their fashions, and the days of their activism was taught in the classrooms as well as the media.

Notice a pattern here? Well, at least the media thought so. Thus, they prepared for the 1990's. On December 31, 1989 - January 1, 1990, Almost Live (a show that was a Seattle version of SNL, only funnier), at the end of it's New Year's Special, did a contest about something about the 1970's. Because we all were going to look back at that decade just like we looked back at the 1950's and 1960's. Right?

Not really. This enthusiasm began to die down. A 1970's station was started, but it flopped - while the Oldies and the Classic Rock station continued. A few movies were made. KISS, and the Pistols, had their reunion tours.

But the 1970's were a bad decade - see my earlier column "sucking the the '00's". The only people who looked back at this as a golden age were the Arabs and the Soviets. For America, this was not a happy time. So people did not look at this Remember, people are not clamoring for cars made in the 1970's - unlike those from the 1950's and the 1960's - for not only do they conjure up bad images, but they are largely ugly gashogs.

But the media, looking for something to sell, are trying to push the 1980's. As I graduated in 1989, I should be looking joyously toward this decade, right? Not really. Sure, I would like to have Reagan in place of Bush, and it was good time for all those Soviet colonies to shake of the communist yoke, and the prosperity was nice, but generally, there was not a lot culturally to look back favorably toward.

In a way, when nostalgic, people look toward the culture of the decade and want to re-live it. Music, art, movies, lifestyles, sports (although the way the games are played change little-to-little over the decades, unlike other cultural forms) and other aspects of culture are what people want to go back to.

However, people cannot look back forever. This is a recent cultural phenomon. The parents of the boomers did not want to relive the 1930's and the 1940's, for example. There was somewhat of nostalgia in the 1950's, however, for the 1920's, when the theme was prosperity with easy living (something to look back to in a very staid decade, at least for the parents), but those individuals had already had plenty of other experiences to look back at, had their kids, and were looking forward to the good times they would have in retirement, so they did not get carried away like subsequent generations did.

There were two other dominant period of nostalgia in early America. The first was when America was deluged by immigrants, and those of English stock, prone toward nativism, tried to replicate the styles of America before the immigrants came - especially on houses.

The more dominent example is that of the Western genre. From the time that Karl May wrote about the "Old West," Americans (and Germans, too) were fascinated about the days when cowboys, Indians, outlaws, and the US Calvary trounced all over the Rocky Mountains and the Great Plains. Basically, the literary efforts focused on the 1870's and the 1880's. People looked back with nostalgia in this era until about the mid-1970's, when individuals shifted toward literary efforts about space as the new frontier. There have been a few Westerns since that time, but this theme is nowhere near as dominent as it was more than a generation ago.

The nostalgia of the 1950's, the 1960's, and latter decades will not last as long as the Old West nostalgia. Basically, this is because Wyatt Earp, Jesse James, George Custer, and Geromino are far more exciting and interesting characters than Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, and "The Fonz".

Even today, the Old West is looked upon favorably. You do not see a tourist "1950's town" (who would want to see one?), but to qualify as a "ghost town," an old town must look like something from the 1870's. People still dress up in clothing from that period. The most popular piece of clothing from the decade, denim trousers (known as jeans) have become one of the most pieces clothing to wear in the last ten years.

However, the nostalgia of the 1950's and the 1960's is dying away (we won't even count the 1970's or the 1980's, as this gets less and less). There are less movies about these two decades, less TV shows. The "Oldies" stations now play the Beatles and other British Invasion bands (in lieu of the more interesting Do-Wop groups) while the "Classic Rock" stations play very little Beatles, Stones, or Santana and instead play lots of Van Halen, Zepplin, and AC/DC. The cars at least stay - but that is because '57 Chevy's and '65 Mustangs are rare, neat-looking cars.

About fifteen years ago, I was given a journal about culture written for conservative university intelligentsia by one of my favorite history professors, Dr. Zoltan Kramar. I think I still have it, but I misplaced it. An article in this magazine wrote about this very topic. It noted that early Americans thought that nostalgia was some kind of sickness, and how they thought it was more important to look toward the future. As there is a lot to look forward to, I think that this nostalga trend will come to an end, and we will look to what is going on now, and the future.

Book Review - "The Kennedy's - America's Emerald Kings"

OK - One of thing things I promised is book reviews. So I will do a review of what I read.

The book "The Kennedy's - America's Emerald Kings" was purchased by me because it was a. A large history book b. I ran out of reading material, and c. it was on special at Barnes and Noble for $8.00.

And that is about it's worth, not the original $30.00 price. This book focuses on two things: 1) The Kennedy's were Catholic, and b. The Kennedy's were Irish (this they apparently still believe).

And it rambles on and on about these two things. Which is why there is very little substance about their accomplishments. Not until we get into President Kennedy's Senatorial term does it focus on substance - starting with their great contributions in alliance with Senator Joseph McCarthy. Only then does the author write a bit about their accomplishments - not too much about what Congressman P.J. Kennedy did in the 19th century, not too much about the political accomplishments of Mayor Fitzgerald, very little about what John Kennedy did as a Congressman, and very little about Joseph Kennedy's great business accomplishments (and he was a very accomplished businessman) - or his governmental service in the SEC or as the pro-German English ambassador. And it brushes over the Senatorial careers of Bobby and Teddy, as well as practically ignoring the governmental careers of later-day Kennedys, and barely mentions Sargent Shriver's VP bid in 1972. When we get to the Irish Ambassadorship of Jean Kennedy Smith, however, he drones on and on about this very unimportant position. At least Chappaquidick is put in the proper perspective - which is the beginning of the end (and end that has not yet been completed, by the way).

It at least reveals something - the American Irish, for some reason, still refuse to get off the boat, despite being here for around 150 years. This refusal to assimilate creates huge problems as it leads to balkanization. Other ethnic groups who came later have assimilated much, much better (completely in fact) - even when confronted by even stronger prejudice. Which is why we still, for some reason, have some desire to still celebrate St. Patrick's day - even those who stay sober still do. If you need a reason to get drunk, fine, but I do not see a need to celebrate another nation's holiday. For Cinqo de Mayo, at least, there is a reason why Americans should celebrate it - this is the day the French got their asses whooped by a ragtag third world army, and in open battle, no less.

In any case, this book was written in 2003, right before the next prominent member of this family comes into his own politically - Ahnold, the Republican, from Osterreich. He definitely has nothing to do with the Irish - and his kids may lead a very different path from this heritage. As well as from Democratic politics.

Then again, he is heralding the demise of this political family. If the Kennedys are too attached to an island approximately the size of Washington state, then leadership will pass from them - especially since they are too left of center for America's taste. Even Teddy has trouble winning in Massachussets - a blue state that keeps electing Republican governers, and where Kennedys were once worshipped.

American history has produced it's own political families - the Adamses (for whom Calvin Coolidge was a distant member, albeit a postscript) and the Roosevelts have faded from the scene, as the became more disconnected from reality and having even greater degrees of pomposity. The Harrisons, while producing two presidents, never quite reached that stature. The Kennedys' heyday has passed, as the political efforts of the post John-Bobby-Teddy generation resembles those of FDRs' sons. Like it or not, the Kennedy's are about to be kicked off of the pedestal by the Bushes, who have quite a political legacy themselves, and are producing a new generation of members loyal to their party - and may someday even produce a Democrat politician or two.

While there are a lot of books about the Kennedys, it is still too early to get an honest book written about them. Then again, the books about American dynasties that have effectively faded from the scene that are largely incomplete (there is still no book that covers the gamut of the Adams family, for example). I figure that it will take at least another twenty years when an author can write a book about this family that covers the entire time when it mattered.

Ain't Getting no Satisfaction

A recent report on the Fox News site (We report - you decide!) indicates that the Rolling Stones are having trouble getting airplay - because, according to analysis of the writer (so I thought you would let me decide!) the music market is so fractured.

I have always had an interest in what went on in this industry, for was a rodie for a friend's band in high school (which went nowhere and broke up after a year). So I follow up, but I focus on different aspects of it.

Here is the reason why the Stones ain't getting any satisfaction, I mean, airplay. Few kids are interested in what their parents listened to - or watched. And certainly almost no kids are interested in their grandparents' entertainment tastes. I remember trying to run from the tv set when my grandma had Lawrence Welk on (who can be considered the Bon Jovi or Barry Manilow of his generation - i.e., a laughingstock for all those who came after their heyday). The only exception is sports, which does well to bind the generations together.

In our dynamic society, kids need to constantly create their own tastes. We are essentially a society devoted toward pleasure, unfortunately. Tastes are going to change within a twenty year period. This is the way things have been since about 1900.

There simply is no place to mass market new songs from this band anymore. They may consider themselves badass, but really, they are quite tame. Railing against George Bush and Republicans does not make you a rebel any more, especially when most of the entertainment community, much of the United States, and most of the world's population, purportedly hates W and the Republicans. They are far different musically than most rock bands today, "classic rock" stations do not play new stuff from old bands, and pop - top 40 - stations, who focus primarily on a high-school and younger crowd, rarely play any rock anymore, if at all.

And their audience, the majority of whom are over 45, is at an age when the accomplishments of popular musicians do not matter any more. Most people over that age have had far too many experiences to fill their head with such trivia. Stability and sameness, not new experience, is what they look for. They may still listen to "satisfaction," but having their own kids, as well as the fact they are at the peak of their careers, or retired, really makes such concerns juvenile. There has been far more interesting in their lives by this time than a music show. If some man wants to "relive his youth," he is going to search and pursue a 20 year-old bimbo, who certainly will not like the Stones.

Now, I never likes the Stones. I thought they were too slow, and were not hard enough. I never understood their appeal, like I never understood the appeal of Pearl Jam (in my opinion the Stones of the next generation, for they were too slow and not hard enough). Writing "Sweet NeoCon" certainly makes me dislike them more - well, maybe not. If they wrote a song that stated that George Bush is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I still wouldn't listen to it.

Sure, they are still touring, and more importantly, probably still getting groupies. But to most young women, they are probably nothing more than a bunch of dirty old men, which helps explain why their inability to get airplay.

By the time a musician reaches 60, as they are, they should stop focusing on making new music. If there is still money in it, they can keep doing reunion tours. This is the model that made the post 1960's Beach Boys a success. Ozzy has a similar model, the Ozzfest, which is quite successful. Notice that highly popular musicians like Frank Sinatra stopped mass marketing new material shortly after he "retired" in the early 1970's, and he was able to live happily until he died.

Yes, Mick Jagger wants to spout his political rhetoric. Fortunately, he is preaching to the choir. Especially while using profanity to do so, which does not sell anyone in the middle.

Someone noted that coming from them, their political ideas will have little influence. While most celebrities are incapable of spouting political opinions that make them look like bumbling idiots, Mick Jagger is not. He was studying at the London School of Economics before he was sure the band was going to be successful. So when this was the case, he practiced what he preached (economics preaches that someone should go into something that makes a lot of money) and got the band going.

Now, what does being an economist have to do with being intelligent? If you are going to study this field at an elite school, you must have an excellent understanding of higher mathematics in order to pass the higher level courses that get you the degree. The education system has still not figured out a way to make calculus intelligible to morons as yet. That is why all those who make Ahnold look stupid have little credibility with me, either, for that was his degree, at Wisconsin-Madison.

For this reason, Mick Jagger should act his age, and figure out a way to coherently, eloquently, and effectively state his political position - so that he gets some people on the fence to come over to his position. While I do not agree with Tom Hanks' political positions, he is one of the few actors who does have credibility with me (and I respect), as his explanations are thoughtful and he appears to have studied his positions before he says something. He is not one who has a bunch of idiotic phrases stumble out every time he opens his mouth, like a majority of the celebrities out there. Hence, he probably has an ability to get some people to his point of view who were in the middle, or maybe on the other side.

However, I don't think Mick Jagger will. This man will continue to go on stage and act like a monkey well beyond the age when it is acceptible to do so. He still may try to act like one in 20 years when he has to shuffle up there on a walker. For he is still stuck in his "rebel" mode despite very much being part of the establishment, and like any overgrown teenager, he will not listen to change his ways in a way that will make him more effective. Hence, I have nothing to fear from his rhetoric.

First Anniversary of Rathergate - What was ignored in this story

On One of the newssites I refer to, Orbusmax.com (a Drudgereport geared toward the Pacific Northwest), one of the headlines yesterday was that this was the first anniversary of Rathergate.

Remember Rathergate? Rather than making a big point of 'W's National Guard duty in 2000, CBS News did so in 2004. And CBS News had a fraudulent story. Which was first pointed out to by the blogs. Which lead to a retraction - and the removal of Dan Rather from the anchorman's position.

Undoubtedly, there is a left-wing bias in the mainstream media. Even Walter Cronkite wrote an apologia for this bias a few years back. However, at that time, when people were discussing Rather's removal, I tried to get my point across to a call-in talk show (whose host has a too high opinion of himself, and preferred to harrass a left-wing caller that day than deal with calls of substance). My point - why not drop the 6:00 newscast all together?

That was a ripe time for one of the former "Big 3" networks to drop it. The second generation of anchormen have now disappeared from their stage. Brokaw retired, Rather was disgraced, and Jennings is dead. This show keeps losing viewers year after year after year, since the advent of talk radio, and even more with the internet. Even for viewers loyal to their specific anchorman, that would have been a good time for at least one of the networks to drop their newscast.

There are several reasons why it would make sense to do so - none having to do with ideology. The audience for these programs is, well, old. They will start dying off soon. Those of younger generations get their news from many, many other sources. From cable (CNN, FOXNews). From radio (talk radio - all formats, NPR, and there are several pure news stations). A shortwave radio is affordable, and you can get BBC. There are lots and lots of newspapers. Then there is a myriad of news from the internet. In a way, Matt Drudge is America's new Cronkite (and Woodward, and Time Magazine - more about this in a later post). Not only do conservatives go to his page for news, but so do many liberals, as he primarily provides a headline, and provides a link to the story - many of which go against conventional conservative thinking. There are several conservative and left-wing sites, but there are unbiased sites like Google News and Yahoo News, too.

Some may argue that not everyone can afford this access. I personally think it is a bad idea to get news from the TV, as all other sources go into much more depth. However, even an indigent can get all the internet access in the world - all such a person needs is a library card. Radios are cheap, and newspapers are found in libraries.

In a sense, by the time the network news hits the screen, it is obsolete. And, it is at a fixed time. Are you going to interrupt a busy day to watch the 6:00 news (especially when so many more sources of news are so much more convenient?)

I can give a few reasons why one of the "Big 3" does not want to pull the plug on it's nightly newscast. One is that old people usually have a way to spend a lot of money, especially for all those medicines. Even money that does not belong to them, but rather to insurance plans and Medicare. So to get this money, they keep running the newscast, which old people will watch, and the pharmaceutical industry will keep handing over bundles and bundles of money to the networks so the viewers can "ask your doctor to see if [name of medicine] is right for you."

Another reason is they want their news to be seen as a "serious" endeavor. As if. Even Bearkly Breathard showed what fluff these newscasts were, and that was 20 years ago. And he is no conservative. There might be some benefit from those newsmagazine shows, but not the nightly newscasts.

I think another reason is the network executives, well, have their heads...These three networks operate off of a formula developed over fifty years ago. Soaps in the afternoon, then the news hour, then pre-prime time (usually game shows), then prime time drama/sitcoms, then the late-night shows, and sports on weekends, as well as cartoons on Saturday morning for the kids (do they still do this one? I don't know as I have no kids). And the sitcoms are usually lame. Unless they are "cutting edge" and then they are often stupid. Sometimes you get a "Desperate Housewives" but those successes are getting rarer and rarer for networks.

Network executives need to realize that times have changed, and need to change with the times. Even with a simple cable package, you can get 60 channels. It's not much more for 180 channels. Those channels appeal to every interest group out there - not only are there all-news channels, there are two history channels, science channels, home channels, sports channels, music channels, movie channels, kids channels, shopping channels, etc. etc. And if you are willing to pay a bit more, you can get those channels that show programs that aren't allowed on the networks. Someday there may even be a math channel. And then there is the internet to take time away from tv, as well as DVD players (and VCR's, which are themselves obsolete).

Not to mention that the new networks didn't even try a nightly news program. Are there three "new" ones (even Fox is almost 20 years old) since the so-called "golden age" of tv? They are developing according to new formulas to get an audience. And they are doing nitch markets for their own channels.

In an oligopolistic model, there are few choices to consumers. The three networks are still operating as if they are oligopolies. They are trying to appeal to everyone. This idea is very obsolete. Think of the three networks as the typewriters of the television industry. And they will continue to lose share, until no one watches them. Or at least they will be hemorrhaging cash at such a rate that management will be forced to change them. Eventually they are going to have to face the music and re-orientate themselves to a specific market. No more days of writing shows that most of America watches, as that is not possible. And they will have to stop being essentially carbon-copies of one-another, like they could get away with 30 years ago.

I would suggest they do what they do best - keep the major-league sports (although they will now compete with the new networks, as has been shown), the soaps, some news magazines, and maybe focus on locating a nitch market for writing dramas/sitcoms. Late-night may eventually go by the wayside (since there is a lot for night owls to watch nowadays, and some middle-age guy giving interviews isn't as interesting to someone who can find a channel that interests them more). And allow affiliates to provide some of their own programming. However, they will eventually have to dump the stuff where they can no longer compete - such as Saturday morning cartoons, if they haven't already dumped them. And the nightly newscast.

Maybe even one of the networks can keep the nightly newscast, for the old people to go to, who are in the habit of watching it. I think that the day will come when a network will announce that it is cutting that program, to the shock of many. But old habits die hard, especially those that are over 50 years old.

The scandal of Rathergate showed the American people not to have faith in the old ways of doing news. It is time the three networks learn that America will increasingly turn from the nightly newscast, there will be few viewers, and to survive the huge financial drain this creates, pull the plug on this show.

More Katrina!

Two more points.

1) Matt Drudge posted a note that a former Indiana Congressman, who was a 9-11 commissioner, (I forget his name), recommends that President Bush appoint Jimmy Carter oversee the rebuilding of New Orleans. If such a position is possible to create, I say do it, and put Carter in there. Just because someone was an inept president does not mean they are not capable of successfully doing other things - Jimmy Carter has demonstrated a capability to do humanitarian work. Everyone will gain from Bush making this appointment - even President Bush and the Republicans. Believe me on this one.

2) Mike Brown has been taken off hurricane duty. Supposedly, according to a Drudge report headline, he does not know why (in the linked article to ABCNews.com he said he was made a scapegoat by the press, but not by the president, maybe indicating the reason for this headline). Yes, President Bush said "And Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job. The FEMA director's been working 24 hours" and Chertoff said "Mike Brown has done everything he could have possibly done... I appreciate his work." However, there is one word that explains those expressions. Rhetoric. All levels of government failed, and by all, I mean FEMA, too. We all make mistakes, and maybe this appointment was a mistake that President Bush made. I think Mike Brown knows why he got removed. If he is not intelligent to figure it out by now, then he should never have been appointed director of FEMA to begin with.

More Post-Katrina Aftermath

I. Governor Blanco Recall

Due to the lack of problems with hurricane Katrina, there are citizens of Louisana who want to remove governer Blanco from office. Here are the basis of the complaint:

1. Failed to execute the state's emergency plan to safeguard the citizens by ordering a mandatory evacuation of Southern Louisiana in a timely manner.
2. Purposefully withheld food, water and hygiene items from the tens of thousands of victims stranded at the Superdome and the New Orleans Convention Center in an effort to get them to leave the area.
3. Delayed sending the Louisiana National Guard to maintain order in the city of New Orleans for four days, allowing snipers to hamper rescue efforts and permitting looters to ransack homes and businesses.
4. Chose to spend the days after Hurricane Katrina engaged in partisan bickering and finger pointing rather than giving FEMA and the U.S. military the authority they needed to take over the rescue effort, relieve suffering, and save lives.

I would like to see the proof. Number 2 sounds conspiratorial, and in fact, as I can recall, she asked that there be no bickering in the aftermath of the storm, so I question point 4. Point 3, however, I don't have enough info to comment on.

I have heard that President Bush asked for an evacuation, and she supposedly refused. I don't know where I heard it, and I don't know whether or not that statement is in fact true. And if it was, if she had good cause to refuse, and it can be documented (like the chaos it could create, for example, and pre-event perception that it was better to keep the citizens in the Superdome than totally evacuate the city, with good evidence to back it up), then there is no basis to remove her. However, if she does not have good cause, and she did in fact refuse to order an evacuation when asked by President Bush, then there might be basis for recall.

It is my impression that in 2002, there was a close gubenatorial election in Louisiana between her, and an Indian (as in from India) who converted to Catholicism and Republicanism in college. He is my age, too. Of course, given that Louisiana is largely Catholic, and is a red state, can only mean they rejected him for one reason - you guessed it, racism. Remember, it is in the deep south, and I suspect that southerners still have some lingering racism. Those that do not are degenerate socialists. There are some who are both, and few that are neither. That is the only explanation I can see as to why he lost. Maybe they will get their wits about them and vote him in during the recall election - if Louisiana's recall (which I assume they have, as people are advocating it) is like California's.


II. Scary Kerry Back

I recently read that Senator Kerry blasted the administration on it's Katrina efforts. He is doing this via his presidential election website, JohnKerry.com, probably telling everyone how this is Bush's failure, etc. etc. Since this appears to be more and more of a local problem, the same things probably would have happened had he been elected. I went there, saw the speech, saw it was long, so didn't read too much of it. He is doing what every other Democrat is doing anyway - follow the leader - so so much for leadership on his part. Yawn - I do that whenever he pops up.

It is my understanding that he wishes to pursue the 2008 Democratic Nomination. Two words: Damaged Goods. Evidence of treason does not play well in subsequent elections. Plus, it is very common knowledge that Hillary will be running in 2008. She is the best choice for the Democrats because a. She has the best chance of winning, and b. She represents Democrat views on almost everything. Any Democrat who supports anyone else in 2008 I have to seriously question their sanity and/or common sense.

Sure, people like Sean Hannity thinks that she is so extreme that everyone will vote against her, but that is what they said about Reagan in 1980. I do not really listen to Sean Hannity - He basically spouts talking points, Michael Medved, on at the same time, is far more interesting, and Sean Hannity is about as exciting as John Kerry.

Speaking of John Kerry, not winning against George Bush indicates his unelectability on a nationwide basis. The Democrats had the anti-war issue, and I believe that Howard Dean had a far better chance of winning that John Kerry, because he was consistent on his anti-war position, as well as the other big issue Democrats like, single-payer health care. He had much more exicited, as well as positive, as opposed to negative, support. John Kerry got as many votes as he did because they were mostly anti- rather than pro- votes. "I voted for $87 billion before I voted against it" would have those sitting on the fence on this issue go toward W, not toward him, because he basically says nothing in this statement, which probably most defined his positions in the election. Howard Dean could have won with his consistent hammering away of the administration's policies. Not that I would have voted for him - I'm a Republican - I'm merely giving observations.

Of course, the establishment decided against Howard Dean because a. John Kerry had lots of "gravitas" and b. Howard Dean had an "A" NRA rating. And I think the establishment hates guns much more than they hate the Iraqi liberation, or much more than they like single payer health care. Of course they gravitate toward those with "gravitas" because, being journalists at the New York Times, they have some kind of self-esteem problem and need to support someone who makes it look like they have stature. Even if such person only introduced two pieces of legislation during a 20 years Senate career, and both being narrow and Massachussets specific.

More Katrina

Back again!

Now we have seen the full impact of this Katrina Story. Bush bad, Bush caused it.

At least according to 13% of a AP poll. Polls are wrong, I believe this is low, because there is a higher percentage of people who hate Bush that they want to pin everything on him. One person I know said that this delay is a plot by Bush to kill poor people. Show me the plans, so you can have credibility! Despite the fact that I think it was more a matter of loss of local control.

Today, a Washington State Senator, Dave Schmidt, gave an interview on the radio. He chairs a committee that works with disastor relief. He is also a Washington National Guardman. He said that the first 72 hours after a disaster, local officials are responsible, then Washington (DC) is responsible. Washington does not get involved because it creates serious problems by crossing over onto state turf.

And, although Bush declared this a disaster area on Sunday, he still would not have had time to move the necessary troops in place, by Tuesday, to control all the crowds.

And this story about the Louisana National Guard being in Iraq? Almost 80% were home, in Louisiana. Would another 20% have made a difference? And has the entire guard been called up? Maybe my rhetorical question is wrong...

Also, Israel is supposedly told to hold back it's Katrina contribution. Per the world Tribune. As anti-semitism is de-reguer (sorry I can't spell a French phrase) now, we can't let Isreal in the way...

Now that the finger-pointing has begun - actually, it began as the levies started to break - and people are willing to exploit this tragedy, based upon false premises, I will give my opinion as to who is bears the most responsibility for this mess, after reviewing oodles of news reports. It is not Bush, or FEMA, or Blanco, but Nagin. He is the person who was there at the time, who could have had those people on the school busses, who was in the best position to do the necessary coordinating. I believe it would have been very difficult to get FEMA down there, in force, within two days. Then again, maybe there was nothing in this instance that anyone could have done to prevent the huge mess that resulted.

In any case, I will give a link or three. Here is the first:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702462_pf.html

The ugliest figure in this thing may not be a thug, or a politician, but a coach. See this article:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2155656

Finally, here is something that puts those whacky conspiracy theories about this storm in perspective:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0905/graham090705.php3

People have called him a jerk for doing this, but, as people were most than happy to point fingers at conservatives, we are naturally going to defend ourselves - especially when most of the accusuations are based upon falsehoods.

Focusing on all this Katrina stuff kinda drives me crazy - I will try to write something completely different next time.

All the ugliness

Today, the ugliness reigns supreme in New Orleans.

But, it also reigns in the national dialogue.

Unlike our last disaster, 9-11, rather than the best being brought out in people, now, evil s being brought out in people.

Take what is being said by some on the left:

1) Global Warming is responsible for Hurricane Katrina.
James Glassman notes that this is an absurdity, and that global warming had nothing to do with it.

2) According to Sidney Bluementhal, the Bush administration did not build the dikes in time.
However, in the same article, he notes that in there has only been a 40% cut since 2003. So, where were the plans to increase to have the height of the levees increased by August 28, 2005. No specific plans were noted in his article by those responsible for the levees.

3) The Louisana National Guard is now in Iraq, and could not help out.
However, there were some units left to tend to New Orleans. The hurricane happened on Sunday night, and it was not until Tuesday that the levees broke. This statement was made on Wednesday. And how long does it take for it to mobilize? And the rioters began on Tuesday. Even if they had been here, it is doubtful if they would have been in a position to put a halt to the looters. Remember, there were plenty of National Guard units in 1992, but riots happened, anyway.

If we wish to play the blame game, we can shift some blame, too.

1) The cops have been neutralized from taking stronger actions due to accusations of "police brutality" that the left has been pushing for decades. Had they been able to use more force, like gunpower, almost all of the rioting would have stopped.
2) Much of the thug class now controlling New Orleans is due to four decades of failed social policy - welfare and more liberal divorce laws breaking up the (young) family. And, sex without consequences resulting in single-parent (read - single mother) families. So there is no father around to smack a brat when he gets out of line. Hence he stays a brat, and becomes a thug. Such thugs are now hampering part of the rescue effort, and are now victimizing some of the refugees.

Indeed, President Bush was not exactly fiddling in Crawford. He did declare a state of emergency (or whatever you do) on Sunday, August 28, so that FEMA crews could be down to that region to take care of problems from the hurricane.

Now, the ugliness is not exclusive to this country. Muslim extremists are declaring that the hurricane is now part of the jihad against us. One Kuwaiti official has proclaimed that this is Allah's work for the stuff we did that was so offensive in the Middle East - for example, like liberating his country, and by giving Shiite Muslims in Iraq greater freedom (to do such things like practice Islam) in our liberation of Iraq.

Nonetheless, we must put things into perspective. Such ugliness did not exist in our prior tragedy. Some people are willing to crassly exploit tragedy to discredit their enemies, push their agenda's, all while using exaggerations and misrepresentations of the facts to attribute blame. This started with the Vietnam era, and the spoiled, ungrateful baby boomers (on both sides of the political spectrum) used this to destroy the civicness that used to characterize oppostion. There are now two medias of almost equal strength, and such ugliness, if carried forward, will help tear our country apart, like having two spoiled, spiteful children having tempertantrums without parents ever being around.

We need to be honest. There is enough blame to go everywhere. As one columist noted (link noted below). If we stop pointing the finger, we can provide aid to those who need it.

Links to follow.