Being poor is crying when you drop the mac and cheese on the floor

There has been a lot of talk lately about poverty, because of Katrina of course and the horrendous disproportionate impact that storm had on poor people.
John Scalzzi writes about the reality of Being Poor. This is a painful list to read:

Being poor is knowing exactly how much everything costs . . . Being poor is hoping the toothache goes away . . . Being poor is living next to the freeway . . . Being poor is coming back to the car with your children in the back seat, clutching that box of Raisin Bran you just bought and trying to think of a way to make the kids understand that the box has to last . . . Being poor is a heater in only one room of the house . . . Being poor is hoping your kids don't have a growth spurt . . . Being poor is Goodwill underwear . . . Being poor is not enough space for everyone who lives with you . . . Being poor is thinking $8 an hour is a really good deal . . . Being poor is an overnight shift under florescent lights . . . Being poor is finding the letter your mom wrote to your dad, begging him for the child support . . . Being poor is stopping the car to take a lamp from a stranger's trash . . . Being poor is making lunch for your kid when a cockroach skitters over the bread, and you looking over to see if your kid saw . . . Being poor is people angry at you just for walking around in the mall . . . Being poor is the police busting into the apartment right next to yours . . . Being poor is hoping you'll be invited for dinner . . . Being poor is people thinking they know something about you by the way you talk . . . Being poor is needing that 35-cent raise . . . Being poor is your kid's teacher assuming you don't have any books in your home . . . Being poor is six dollars short on the utility bill and no way to close the gap . . . Being poor is crying when you drop the mac and cheese on the floor . . . Being poor is picking the 10 cent ramen instead of the 12 cent ramen because that's two extra packages for every dollar . . . Being poor is a box of crayons and a $1 coloring book from a community center Santa . . . Being poor is hoping the register lady will spot you the dime . . . Being poor is a cough that doesn't go away . . . Being poor is a lumpy futon bed . . . Being poor is knowing where the shelter is . . . Being poor is seeing how few options you have . . . Being poor is having to live with choices you didn't know you made when you were 14 years old . . . Being poor is people wondering why you didn't leave.

I have an email from this African fellow whose funds are frozen , , ,

Well, I was listening to parts of the Bush speech on the news last night and heard things like Bush actually talking about how racism had held people back and I thought, hey, maybe Katrina was a wake-up experience for more than just a few CNN and Fox reporters.
And then tonight I read Digby and gave my head a shake:

I cannot believe that any liberal in the country would take George W Bush's word about anything at this point, but apparently we all haven't learned our lesson yet. I'm not sure what it will take, to tell you the truth. But for those of you who believe he has somehow capitulated to liberal ideals, I would like to introduce you to a friend of mine from an African nation whose funds have been frozen ....

Place yer bets!

Justin Raimondo says Next Stop: Syria

This administration will stop at nothing - nothing! - to advance its Middle Eastern agenda, and that agenda consists of a single simple word: conquest. Anyone who really believes that Hurricane Katrina will divert this administration and the neocon cabal that has seized control of our foreign policy from pursuing their dreams of Empire is a fool. A new conflict will divert attention away from the incompetence surrounding the response to Katrina: the devastation and Bush's clueless efforts to ameliorate it will only encourage the White House to leave us with a lasting legacy of fresh horrors in the Middle East. Why are we in Iraq? All the better to go after Syria, then Iran. Saudi Arabia, too, is 'on the table' - and the feast has just begun.

Earlier, the betting seemed to be that Iran would be next, but the US isn't getting much traction right now on making Iran into the world's enemy du jour -- this Washington Post story says the US has created a powerpoint -- a powerpoint, for crying out loud! -- which unnamed US "presenters" have been shopping around the UN. The goal is to get the International Atomoc Energy Agency next week to as the Security Council for sanctions -- which the IAEA probably won't do anyway, but which Security Council certainly won't do because look how burned they got over Iraq -- fool me twice don't fool me again.
But anyway, the Bolton folks are trying -- very trying:

. . . titled "A History of Concealment and Deception," (the powerpoint) has been presented to diplomats from more than a dozen countries. Several diplomats said the presentation, intended to win allies for increasing pressure on the Iranian government, dismisses ambiguities in the evidence about Iran's intentions and omits alternative explanations under debate among intelligence analysts.

Sounds like a typical Bolton project, doesn't it - clumsy and clueless and assuming that everyone else is stupid. The story continues:

. . . Several diplomats said the slide show reminded them of the flawed presentation on Iraq's weapons programs made by then-secretary of state Colin L. Powell to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003. "I don't think they'll lose any support, but it isn't going to win anyone either," said one European diplomat who attended the recent briefing and whose country backs the U.S. position on Iran . . . Robert G. Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, acknowledged last week that despite European support, the Bush administration has traveled a tough road in persuading others that Iran should face consequences for a nuclear program it built in secret. "There's a great deal of resistance . . . on the part of many governments who don't seem to place, quite frankly, nonproliferation and Iran, a nuclear-armed Iran, at the top of their priority list," he told a congressional panel last week.

Gee, maybe somebody should tell them that the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud. Then they'll take it seriously, I'm sure.
At the end of the story, the WP provides some more information about the powerpoint which just makes it sound increasingly pathetic:

With little new information from the [IAEA] probe, the Bush administration put together its own presentation of Iran's program for diplomats in Vienna who are weighing whether to report Iran to the Security Council. The presentation has not been vetted through standard U.S. intelligence channels because it does not include secret material. One U.S. official involved in the briefing said the intelligence community had nothing to do with the presentation and "probably would have disavowed some of it because it draws conclusions that aren't strictly supported by the facts." The presentation, conducted in a conference room at the U.S. mission in Vienna, includes a pictorial comparison of Iranian facilities and missiles with photos of similar-looking items in North Korea and Pakistan, according to a copy of the slides handed out to diplomats. Pakistan largely supplied Iran with its nuclear infrastructure but, as a key U.S. ally, it is identified in the presentation only as "another country." Corey Hinderstein, a nuclear analyst with the Institute for Science and International Security, said the presence of a weapons program could not be established through such comparisons. She noted that North Korea's missile wasn't designed for nuclear weapons so comparing it to an Iranian missile that also wasn't designed to carry a nuclear payload "doesn't make sense."

And the article also notes that Pakistan leader Pervez Musharraf "refused to speculate on whether Iran, whose program was secretly aided by Pakistan's top nuclear scientist, had been designed for weapons production. But he said he feels confident Iran's aims are now peaceful and there was no need for Security Council action." So all in all, the Bolton program of demonizing Iran isn't going anywhere, so maybe Raimondo is correct and Syria is next up.

Canadian reporters are reporting the wrong news about emergency departments

Canadian reporters are all atwitter about the news in the new CIHR emergency room study that 57 per cent of emergency room visits are for non-life-threatening conditions. But the story they missed is what is happening to the people who DO have life-threatening conditions. From the Conclusion section: "Overall, physicians saw just over half of all patients with a cardiac arrest, major trauma, or other condition that represents a threat to life or carries an immediate risk of deterioration within five minutes of their arrival in the ED in 2003-2004. On the other hand, the report also shows that that 1 in 10 patients with these types of health problems waited 45 minutes or longer to be seen." [Emphasis mine]
UPDATE: In fact, the more I think about it, the more I wonder why this significant Conclusion was not listed in the "highlights" section from which the reporters got their stories. If I was a real reporter, I would be phoning up the report publishers tomorrow to ask them.

Living high

One of my favorite writers, Garrison Keillor, is writing for Salon again. Its an easy, gentle kind of writing, conversational, discursive, folksy -- nahhh, not really, just on the surface. Underneath, Garrison bites. Maybe it could be summed up by just saying that Garrison Keillor doesn't suffer fools.
Here is a section from his latest Salon column, Looking for higher ground:

Blanche DuBois said she always had depended on the kindness of strangers but that was before last week. Last week showed you pretty clearly that you should never ever get in a situation where you're trapped and don't have food or water. Nobody's going to come. Lower taxes and less government means you better live on a high bluff above the river and have plenty of money . . . I like New Orleans but I'd never live there. I enjoy the streetcars and the gumbo and the little gardens behind the high walls in the French Quarter and the easy view of life. It's a city where you can find people to talk to late at night and nobody is in a rush to get home . . . The downside of being the Big Easy is that visitors feel encouraged to show you a side of themselves you'd rather not see, the blithering drunkenness and bare-breasted ladies and plastic gewgaws of Bourbon Street and Mardi Gras. You don't have to be Baptist to find the company of drunks discouraging and New Orleans is a mecca for alcoholics. Big Easiness, however, is not conducive to good government and the city hasn't gotten much of that. There are large sections of town where the tourist is warned never to set foot. The schools are wretched and services are lousy and in a high-water-table city where even high ground is low and low ground is below sea level, the flood control system wasn't ever more than modestly adequate, and so last week the Big Easy got to know George Bush. You don't have to be drunk to be stupid. Here was a patronage appointee, the pal of a pal, in charge of the federal response to Katrina and he sat and waited to see what would happen and when it happened, he froze. As Mr. Bush said, he had no idea that the levees wouldn't hold. Truly. It's not how we used to do things, back when there was a sense of shame attached to government incompetence that costs lives, but it's different in America these days. Don't ever get in trouble, is my advice. Head upriver and look for high ground.

A completely irrelevant aside is that Keillor also narrated the famous Briish Honda Accord commercial -- watch it here, and if you want more info about it, see here.

Please God . . . we promise not to piss it away this time

One of the jokes going around in the 1970s oil shortage period, when the formerly-wealthy Houston oil barons were going bankrupt, was a bumper sticker which went something like this:
"Please, God, send us another oil boom. We promise not to piss it away this time."
I was reminded of this reading Ian Welch's hugely significant piece "American Genuis" on The Blogging of the President -- he talks about why the American empire-bubble will end.

No society that is not led well over long periods can prosper. The US appears to be in the last frenzy of looting of Empire. The end days are nigh, the looting has extended to eating the seed corn and twenty years from now, seed corn gone, Americans will find that America is not unique and that the sun does set on every great nation. As usual they will have been destroyed from within by the home grown rats, fat upon the grain of their fellow citizens.

I would like to hear Ian's opinions about what will happen to Canada when the bubble bursts.

Supersize me

You know how land is supposed to be a great buy because they're not making any more of it. Well, maybe they are: CNN.com - Growing land bulge found in Oregon Hmmm -- I'm trying to think of a line here . . .

Great line of the day

Regarding Bush's announcement accepting (sort-of) responsibility:
"The President has done the obvious, only after it was clear he couldn't get away with the inexcusable." -- John Kerry, as quoted by Josh Marshall.

Coy? Oh, how cute

Roberts Repeatedly Dodges Roe V. Wade
I don't get it.
At some point, like when he starts ruling on cases, Roberts will have to make up his mind where he stands on some of these issues. Hasn't he given them some thought to date?
This news story implies that Roberts thinks the purpose of the hearings is to avoid revealing his judicial philoosphy or the basis for his opinions: "The questions quickly jumped among hot-button issues of the day — abortion, gay rights, war powers, torture of enemy prisoners among them. And Roberts, known for his unflappability when under questioning, seemed ready. He tried to reassure senators about his views on the issues without revealing too much. "
How could they be "reassured" if he won't tell them anything?
That said, it is stupid for Senators to think that there is any question about what Roberts will do on the court.
OF COURSE he will vote to overturn Rov V Wade -- Bush would never have nominated him elsewise. And its not because of political strategy and rewarding his base and all that, but simply because Bush personally is pro-life. He has never made any secret about this. Bush doesn't believe that women should have the right to choose to have an abortion. So why would he ever nominate to the Supreme Court a justice who did not share that view? It is his legacy.

Great line of the day

Is from Juan Cole at Informed Comment. He is writing about Tal Afar:

The latest US/Iraqi offensive in Tal Afar petered out on Sunday, as the invaders discovered that the guerrillas in the city had used tunnels to escape. The Iraqis and the US had been saying that they wanted to prevent the guerrillas from getting away, but now they just have to declare victory and go home. Most of the city has been emptied out. Most of the residents had not been guilty of any thing, but now they are refugees. These sweep operations such as have been conducted several times at Tal Afar and also at Qaim and even the Sunni parts of Baghdad have never really succeeded. It is like attacking water; it just flows around you and the situation ends up the same as before. Operation Lighting in early June in Baghdad was supposed to put an end to Sunni Arab guerrilla operations in Baghdad. It did seem to impede them for a brief period, but then they roared back. It seems possible, perhaps likely, that Tal Afar will revert again, too, when people come back to the city. The US/Iraqi government policy now appears to be to de-urbanize the Sunni Arab heartland by destroying Sunni cities one after another. The problem with such a tactic is that it will not actually reduce attacks on the US military or the Iraqi police. It will just seed ethnic hatred for decades to come.

The line I like is the one in bold, about attacking water. But I thought the whole post was worth quoting.
I haven't blogged much about Iraq because of the New Orleans tragedy, but I don't think things are going any better now than they were in mid-August. Cole also notes that the constitution is still a mess and the UN doesn't yet have a document that it can print for the vote which is supposed to be held in four weeks.
Also, it struck me as passing strange to hear reports that the US is blowing up bridges along the Tigris River, I think it was, to prevent Syrians from moving south. Isn't blowing up bridges something that armies do when they are retreating?

Its a sin to kill a mockingbird

In this editorial, the Vancouver Sun concludes that Irwin Cotler should refuse extradition of Marc Emery.
Why? Basically, because what Emery did is NOT wrong here:

Whether [Cotler] wants to admit it or not, selling viable cannabis seeds is de facto legal in Canada, and Cotler can therefore refuse to surrender Emery on the grounds that what he is charged with in the U.S. is not an offence in Canada . . . the federal government was referring medical marijuana users to Emery's website until two years ago. The actions and inaction of the federal government make it abundantly clear that the feds didn't -- and still don't -- consider Emery's operation illegal. Hence the prospect of sending someone to a country that considers such conduct an offence would appear to violate the principles of fundamental justice. Cotler seems morally and legally obliged to exercise his discretion and refuse extradition.

I hope other newspapers take up this same approach.
In the end, only one thing matters, I think. Just this: it would be morally wrong for Canada to send Emery and his two companions to jail in the United States for doing something which Canadians do not think is illegal.

Good

I had been intending to study up on the Shariah law issue in Ontario and post something on it, but I guess the debate is now over. McGinty's decision is, I think, the right one: McGuinty rejects Shariah law --

McGuinty announced his government would move quickly to outlaw existing religious tribunals used for years by Christians and Jews under Ontario's Arbitration Act. 'I've come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough,' he said. 'There will be no Shariah law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians.' McGuinty said religious arbitrations 'threaten our common ground,' and promised his Liberal government would introduce legislation 'as soon as possible' to outlaw them in Ontario. 'Ontarians will always have the right to seek advice from anyone in matters of family law, including religious advice,' he said. 'But no longer will religious arbitration be deciding matters of family law.'

I think framing it on the basis of having a single law for everyone in Ontario is the correct approach. It follows the basic principle of democracy -- if people don't like that law, then elect a different government to change it, but until then the same law applies to all.

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

From Huffington Post comes notice of this Telegraph story about the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:


His Noodliness

In the past few weeks, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has become perhaps the world's fastest-growing "religion" and maybe its most improbable. While no one can be sure of the exact numbers of "Pastafarians", as acolytes are called, they may number in the millions.

This all started out as a letter to the Kansas City school board from an unemployed Oregon physics graduate Bobby Henderson demanding that they teach Flying Spaghetti Monsterism as well as Intelligent Design and Evolution. "I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
And it has turned into just a... a ...a Monster!
See more at this website: http://www.venganza.org/, including this information on why this church is so much better than the rest: "1. Flimsy moral standards. 2. Every friday is a relgious holiday. If your work/school objects to that, demand your religious beliefs are respected and threaten to call the ACLU. And 3) Our heaven is WAY better. We've got a Stripper Factory AND a Beer Volcano."
Oh, is there NOTHING sacred these days?

Great line of the day

General Honore describes the media who are covering the New Orleans recovery efforts: " 'I can't swing a dead cat without hitting a reporter,' Honore said."

Batshit crazy

Associated Press reports that an updated US preemptive war doctrine now says it would be OK to use nuclear weapons as long as the US is sufficiently scared.
First, the news story tries to reassure us

The "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," which was last updated 10 years ago, makes clear that "the decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the president."

Please forgive me if I don't trust Cheney's judgement on this anymore -- this is a guy who still wants to believe that Iraq was behind 911.
Then the article continues

"A broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking ... courses of action that would threaten U.S. and allied security," the draft says. "U.S. forces must pose a credible deterrent to potential adversaries who have access to modern military technology, including WMD and the means to deliver them." It says "deterrence of potential adversary WMD use requires the potential adversary leadership to believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective." It says "this will be particularly difficult with nonstate (non-government) actors who employ or attempt to gain use of WMD. Here, deterrence may be directed at states that support their efforts as well as the terrorist organization itself. However, the continuing proliferation of WMD along with the means to deliver them increases the probability that someday a state/nonstate actor nation/terrorist may, through miscaluation or by deliberate choice, use those weapons. In such cases, deterrence, even based on the threat of massive destruction, may fail and the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary." It notes that U.S. policy has always been purposely vague with regard to when the United States would use nuclear weapons and that it has never vowed not to be the first to use them in a conflict. One scenario for a possible nuclear pre-emptive strike in the draft would be in the case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.

In other words, when we tell a "state/non-state actor nation/terrorist" what to do -- and that terminology seems to include just about everybody -- then they'd better do it. Or else we'll think that maybe they are getting ready to attack us. And if we think they might attack us, then we'll nuke 'em and let God sort 'em out.
These people are hysterical batshit crazy, aren't they? It just goes to prove the statement that if all you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.
I think the Pentagon just cannot understand it -- that even though they are the strongest nation in the world with all sorts of nuclear weapons, why is it that they still don't feel safe? So now they think that not only can they somehow use nukes to stop someone from dropping a vial of anthrax into the water supply -- but they think also that they have the moral right to do this.
And what will it take to get other nations to step forward and try to stop this craziness? China? India? Britain? Saudi Arabia? Even Canada? It's long past time for you guys to say something.