Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to view the devastation in Southeast Asia as a result of the tsunami. As appalled as I was by what I saw, I must confess that occasionally my thoughts drifted back to the United States. What would have happened if last September, Hurricane Ivan had veered 40 miles to the west, devastating the city of New Orleans? One likely scenario would have had a tsunami-like 30-foot wall of water hitting the city, causing thousands of deaths and $100 billion in damage.

The city has always been at risk because of its low-lying location, but that risk has been increased because of rising sea levels, groundwater pumping and the erosion of coastal Louisiana. Twenty-four square miles of wetland disappear every year, since the 1930s an area one and a half times the size of Rhode Island washed away.

Considering the reaction of the American public to the loss of a dozen people in the recent mud slides in California, it is hard to imagine what would happen if a disaster of that magnitude hit the United States.

The experience of Southeast Asia should convince us all of the urgent need for congressional action to prevent wide-scale loss of life and economic destruction at home and abroad. Prevention and planning will pay off. Maybe the devastation will encourage us to act before disaster strikes.
………………………………………….

Yeah, but Earl Blumenhauer, my Congressman, spends much of his time reading through government reports and picking out things that don’t look quite right. I get the feeling a lot of Members of Congress don’t really do that. (Paging David Wu?)

One of the weird realities of American politics is that while approval ratings always tend to suggest dissatisfaction with Congress, they hold a high approval rating of their own Member of Congress. Make of that what one must.

Graffiti spotted:

“Where is John Galt!?!”

The graffiti response:

“Gee, Ayn. I don’t know.”

I contemplate scribbling my own graffiti, something to the effect of “I hear he was killed in a train-wreck. Supposedly caused by bureaucratic incompetence, but really it was intentional homocide because Galt/Rand is a pompous ass.” I didn’t, because I’m not entirely clear on the going ons of Fountainhead.

(The two main rejoinders of this blog entry are lifted from the Reason Magazine “Hit and Run” blog):

George Bush does indeed defecate. (The evidence may be a bit flimsy, or it may not be… decide for yourself.

Who doesn’t defecate?

Apparently, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il!!

His public schools teach North Korean children that he does not defecate…

Who knew?

(To be fair, a “potty break”, as George W Bush was photographed as requesting, does not necessarily specify defecation.)

In no particular order:

#1: Barbara Bush. Who said of Hurricane evacuees currently residing in the Houston Astro-Dome: “So many of the people here, you know, were underprivileged anyway (chuckle), so this is working very well for them.”

I have one question: What is with the Bushes? (Bush the Better had it, and Bush the Lesser doesn’teven understand the ramnifications of a single mother with three jobs.) Is this genetic, a product of a pampered background, or something else? (Remember though, the great heroes of the Democratic Party are Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy — two products of wealth… and the current Republican Party leader in the House — Tom DeLay — grew up poor, so you can’t paint a broad “class warfare” brush here.)

There’s a thousand points of light
For the homeless man
There’s a kinder, gentler machine gun hand
There’s department stores, and toilet paper
Styrofoam garbage for the ozone layer
There’s a man of the people, says people alive
Got fuel to burn, got roads to drive — Neil Young

#2: Speaking of Tom DeLay… what is his excuse?

The kids were all lying around on a cot and appeared to have no clue who these visitors were. DeLay lightened the subject with the camping out comment. “You gotta admit, isn’t it kinda fun, like camping out?” Then Snow gave one kid an awkward pat on the back and they all moved on.

#3: To point to the leaders(?) of the Religious Right is like aiming at the broadside of a barn, so bungle them together.

I will point out that I called the story of Pat Robertson saying that Hurricane Katrina was caused by God’s anger over the selection of lesbian comedienne Ellen Degeneres to host the upcoming Emmy Awards correctly: it is bull. That’s a wee bit specific, and stylistically fits more under Fred Phelps. As for Pat Robertson — no, it’s Abortion that caused God’s Wrath:

You know, it’s just amazing, though, that people say the litmus test for [Supreme Court nominee John G.] Roberts [Jr.] is whether or not he supports the wholesale slaughter of unborn children. We have killed over 40 million unborn babies in America. I was reading, yesterday, a book that was very interesting about what God has to say in the Old Testament about those who shed innocent blood. And he used the term that those who do this, “the land will vomit you out.” That — you look at your — you look at the book of Leviticus and see what it says there. And this author of this said, “well ‘vomit out’ means you are not able to defend yourself.” But have we found we are unable somehow to defend ourselves against some of the attacks that are coming against us, either by terrorists or now by natural disaster? Could they be connected in some way? And he goes down the list of the things that God says will cause a nation to lose its possession, and to be vomited out. And the amazing thing is, a judge has now got to say, “I will support the wholesale slaughter of innocent children” in order to get confirmed to the bench. And I am sure Judge Roberts is not going to say any such thing. But nevertheless, that’s the litmus test that’s being put on, the very thing that could endanger our nation. And it’s very interesting. Read the bible, read Leviticus, see what it says there.

#4: David Duke needs your help. See, his office building has been destroyed and…:

Despite what to many would seem crippling setbacks, Duke vows to continue his pro-White activities, and believes that his readers and supporters — who gave him some 60 per cent of the White vote in races for Governor and Senator in the state — will help him do that. He says: “I must rely entirely on you, your sense of responsibility, and your generosity.”

While you’re at it, you can give to the National Vanguard’s charity to “Help White Families in Need”:

Along with the supplies that are being delivered, we are including our brand new “What is National Vanguard?” brochure with every box that is delivered to the needy families. The brochure is a high quality and professionally designed tri-fold hand-out that emphasizes on the front cover the importance of White families. We are not pushing political issues now — there are more urgent things to do. But we do want our people to know who we are.

If it seems like something of a straw-man to figure into the picture David Duke, I have two things: (1) he won more than half of the White Vote in his Lousiana state-wide races.

#5: Glen Beck: When you are rioting for these tickets, or these ATM cards, the second thing that came to mind was — and this is horrible to say, and I wonder if I’m alone in this — you know it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims’ families? Took me about a year. And I had such compassion for them, and I really wanted to help them, and I was behind, you know, “Let’s give them money, let’s get this started.” All of this stuff. And I really didn’t — of the 3,000 victims’ families, I don’t hate all of them. Probably about 10 of them. And when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I’m just like, “Oh shut up!” I’m so sick of them because they’re always complaining. And we did our best for them. And, again, it’s only about 10.

But the second thought I had when I saw these people and they had to shut down the Astrodome and lock it down, I thought: I didn’t think I could hate victims faster than the 9-11 victims. These guys — you know it’s really sad. We’re not hearing anything about Mississippi. We’re not hearing anything about Alabama. We’re hearing about the victims in New Orleans. This is a 90,000-square-mile disaster site, New Orleans is 181 square miles. A hundred and — 0.2 percent of the disaster area is New Orleans! And that’s all we’re hearing about, are the people in New Orleans. Those are the only ones we’re seeing on television are the scumbags — and again, it’s not all the people in New Orleans. Most of the people in New Orleans got out! It’s just a small percentage of those who were left in New Orleans, or who decided to stay in New Orleans, and they’re getting all the attention. It’s exactly like the 9-11 victims’ families. There’s about 10 of them that are spoiling it for everybody.

So… Glen Beck hates victimes of the 9/11 tragedy and he hates the victims of Hurricane Katrina? Well, at least he’s honest. Or desparate for ratings.

#6: John Stossel. Does he believe this ultra-libertarian economic stand on the issue of price gouging, or is this affected contrarianism? I don’t really have the answer.

More later.

I’ve been listening to some (operative word being “some”) of the testimony of the hearings to confirm Chief Justice Roberts (get used to that, for good or ill), and some things strike me:

#1: This is a whole lot of bullshit. Everyone knows that he will be confirmed. Everyone knows that Roberts is not going to answer a single question. Everyone knows that there will be little fits of humour gibes thrown in, as when Schumer makes an analogy on what Roberts’s answers would go if he were asking Roberts about his favourite movies, and he answered “Dr. Zhivago and North by Northwest.” Cue soundtrack.
#2: NPR is functioning as C-SPAN by airing this pretty much 24 / 7. It’s not a good role for them.
#3: Why is Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas proud that his state is the state that was the focus of the court case “Brown vs. the Board of Education”? Hoo-ray … my state was especially segregated!!
#4: Can we just admit that Ruth Breyer Ginsburg was more forthcoming than Roberts, but not as forthcoming as the paradigm of Forthcomingness (whatever that may be), in her testimony and move on with it?
#5: How many ways can you ask about Roe v Wade without asking about Roe v. Wade?
#6: They’re all pompous buffoons, but that’s just the nature of the Senate. It’s a rich lawyers’ hangout.
#7: I always thought Bush’s choice for the “I can nominate a white male here” would be Robert Bork… he surprised me by nominating this Roberts fellow instead. Now that Bush must nominate a woman (to fill Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat), he can nominate Attila the Hun. It’s the right ideology, and we can move Justice Thomas and Scalia into the “court’s moderate wing” camp.
#8: One Senator mentioned looking at blogs, and made reference to what the blog said. Blogs have arrived.

The story goes that there was this long-time Pennsylvania heavyweight politician at the 1992 Democratic Convention who due to his pro-life views was snubbed from a speaking role. The Democratic Party hierarchy (that’d be Clinton’s people) disputes this, saying that (a) there was no reason for Bob Casey — at the end of his career — to have earned the right and (b) He did not endorse Bill Clinton for president and wasn’t much of a team-player in the Democratic Party. Bob Casey rebuts with a “But Jerry Brown has a speaking role, and he didn’t endorse Clinton” — rebutted with a “Jerry Brown won delegates, so we’re stuck with him.” (And “stuck with him” is the opportune phrase, as the Democratic Party was always kind of embarrassed by Jerry Brown.)

Fast forward to 2004. The Democratic Party is said to have lost a presidential election to such a thing as “Values voters”. Some bean counters somewhere believe that the party needs to … blur lines (?) and be less rigid(?) on various social issues. Step to the plate Bob Casey’s son… Bob Casey… who beyond being against Abortion…

and… for state muddling into the Terri Schiavo affair, a position which public response against sort of turned the whole post-mortem “The Public is voting JEESUS by way of Pat Robertson” election analysis its head.

and… against Embryonic cloning beyond what Bush proffered in 2001… which, again, politically and policy wise is annoying…

It’s a curious gambit, and the man is the candidate de jour based on name recognition. He’s running against the much reviled Rick Santorum, he of “dog on man” fame. In a state which went for Kerry and went for Gore. In a state whose other Republican Senator is considered “moderate” in the realm of social issues (which, in terms of our narrow political discourse we’re stuck with in this country, really only means he’s “pro-choice”.)

There is a basic problem here in that this continues the trouble with the Democratic Party in that nobody knows where it stands. I’ve come to the conclusion that the Democratic Party should boldly take a political stand, thematically, for Science — and if it seems bizarre that a “I support Science” platform be injected as a stand in a political debate, it’s an indication of how depressing the political climate is right now. As per a package, what you have at the upstart is: Stem Cell Research, the search for Alternative Energy, um… Evolution… utmost seriousness when scientific explanations come in of how levees might break if a category 5 Hurricane hits New Orleans… that sort of thing.

The storyline goes that the Democratic Party gave up on much of Rurality by abonding economic concerns, advancing NAFTA and GATT — and then took on a rock solid stand for social issues such as Abortion for to gain Suburbia (thus becoming a party of Moderate Republicanism, in a sense.) I’m curious to know what would happen if a party gives up both.

In the realm of this weird kinder, gentler Rick Santorum that the Democratic Party is asking Pennsylvania to vote for… I ask that you vote for the opponent in the primary.

More of the problem in this “same as it ever was” motif concerning Hillary Clinton, presumptive nominee for president in 2008, and Harold Ford — automatic candidate for Tennessee, later.