 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
What They Thought September 11, 2005 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
||||||
If ever there was a time for Americans to repudiate the endless claims of environmentalists, it is now. Hurricane Katrina is an object lesson in the power of Nature to lay waste to everything in its path. Just as surely as the rising of the sun, it will be mere hours before some environmental group announces that this hurricane resulted from “global warming.” Let me assure you that this hurricane and all others are part of a natural climatic cycle that begins off the west coast of Africa and makes its way across the Atlantic. Always has and always will. We can, however, be assured that, with the coming of winter, after the first big blizzard to hit the U.S., we will be told that it is the result of “global warming.” Only there is no “global warming” unless you are talking about the fact that the Earth is currently in an interglacial period between the last Ice Age and the next. As Hurricane Katrina was wreaking havoc, I received a news release from “EarthSave International,” describing itself as a non-profit organization dedicated to “improving the environment and all life on Earth.” Turns out, a study by this group proved that cars and power plants are not “a major cause of global warming.” Instead, the real problem is “animal agriculture.” “The number one human-related source of methane worldwide is livestock.” Cows, sheep, and other ruminants convert grass into meat and, in the process, are flatulent, emitting methane into the atmosphere. According to EarthSave, “Animal agriculture produces more than 100 million tons of methane a year, about 85% from livestock digestion and 15% from manure ‘lagoons’ used to store untreated feces.” These morons have managed to ignore the entire Jurassic period in which dinosaurs, most of which were ruminants, also apparently ruined the Earth’s environment. Good thing they’re not around, huh? While Hurricane Katrina knocked down trees and tore up every kind of structure humans managed to build, these “environmentalists” choose the same day to inform us that we could all save the Earth by not eating meat! Environmentalism, which began as a sensible conservation movement, is one of the worst hoaxes and calamities to have been perpetrated since Marx and Engels dreamed up communism. It has drained away billions from perfectly sensible programs to protect human health, provide sources of energy for both developed and under-developed nations, and has fought efforts to end famine, to name just a few good things to help humanity. Meanwhile, the real lesson of Hurricane Katrina is that America had better stop dawdling around and start drilling for oil in Alaska, offshore, and anywhere else it can be found, including unbelievably vast quantities that exist in shale in some of our Western States. And while we are extracting it, we should begin — tomorrow — to start building some new oil refineries to meet the energy needs of our ever-expanding population. While we’re at it, we should also be building the most environmentally friendly energy source: nuclear plants. None of us can imagine living in a nation that does not provide a reliable source of electricity. None of us can imagine not being able to purchase affordable gas for our cars and trucks. None of us can imagine not having clean water at the turn of the tap. Mother Nature is sending you a message. The message is not about “global warming” or flatulent cows. It is about a sensible energy policy that has been ignored for too long at our peril. It’s about providing housing for a growing population. It’s about showing some respect for the farmers and ranchers who provide the food on our table. And it’s about the whiners who want us to run away from those people who wake up every morning and say, “Death to America.” |
||||||
|
No column this week. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
I’m just going to level with you. I feel awful for the thousands affected by Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans looks like a post-apocalyptic nightmare, the way water and lawlessness have flooded its streets. People are comparing the Big Easy to Pompeii now. They’re tossing around terms like “Lost City.” I feel awful about that. I feel so bad for the people going through this. But part me of hopes it happens. Part of me hopes the city is lost. And I know I’m not alone here — though I’m probably the only one with the balls to admit it. But let me explain. I’m an American. And like most Americans, I watch entirely too much TV. Now, I don’t think this is a bad thing, in and of itself. A lot of TV is worthless, but a lot of books, magazines, movies, and newspapers are worthless, too. So I don’t think it’s fair to condemn the whole medium like so many people tend to do. But the problem with watching too much TV is, it really starts to warp your sense of well, let’s just say your common sense. (I was going to say your sense of proportion.) This is something I’ve been aware of for a long time, but it’s only now — in the wake of Hurricane Katrina — that I’m ready to admit it. The truth is, after many years of TV-news-viewing, I find myself in the precarious position of actually rooting for maximum damage from natural disasters. Not because I’m a cold, callous bastard (though I am), but rather because every disaster is like a chance to break the last disaster’s record. Basically, disaster news coverage has become like watching sports. Hurricanes are a perfect example of what I’m talking about because — unlike tsunamis, earthquakes, mudslides, and fires — hurricanes are disasters you can count on. For all intents and purposes, they’re the baseball of natural disasters. Both occur every summer, and both hit hard when they come from Latin America. Baseball kicks off each season with an air of hope and springtime freshness — a desire to lay past achievements to rest for the meager feats we always knew they were. Will this be the year someone bats .400? Or plants 74 homers in the grandstands? Or hits safely in 57 games? Hurricane coverage works the same way. Every summer is a springtime of hope. Every “named storm” represents a promising opportunity to out-do the last one. And in this case, it seems, Katrina has out-done them all. After hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Ivan pounded Florida last year, I found myself quietly hoping Hurricane Jeanne would hit there, too. Not because I hate Florida, but because four ‘canes hitting one state in a year was a story. It was a dynasty — like the Patriots, Lakers, and Yankees winning multiple championships. Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992 and set the standard for hurricanes in my lifetime. I’ve spent the last thirteen years watching these things on television, hearing reporters talk about people “bracing for the worst.” But only now has it finally happened. Only now has Andrew lost its title as the “worst” hurricane in my lifetime. Katrina has set the new standard. You have people looting not just for bread but televisions now. You have people shooting down helicopters — freakin’ rescue helicopters! Andrew never accomplished any of this. And it’s weird, but I find myself thinking Katrina is to Andrew what LeBron James will be if he lives up to the hype as “the next Michael Jordan.” I won’t claim I should be thinking this. It’s an awful, anti-social thought to have. But in a strange way, I’m sort of glad I was here to witness what New Orleans is going through. It’s such a surreal point in time to be living in. There’s a sense of accomplishment in that. Of course, I could lie about this and tell you, no, I only watch hurricane coverage because I feel bad for the people whose lives have been ruined. Well, that’s why I watch post-hurricane coverage, but not why I watch the stuff leading up to it. And to be quite honest, sympathy’s only part of the reason I watch post-hurricane coverage, either. Katrina’s aftermath has taught me this. The truth is, I’m watching because — deep down — I want to see something happen. I want nature to wow me and hit a 500-foot homer. I want it to run faster than a speeding bullet, or leap tall buildings in a single bound. Watching from the safety of my home in the Northeast, hurricanes don’t seem like the enemy to me. They seem like anti-heroes — like bad guy wrestlers who come to town and bash the locals. You hate how they’re acting, and yet you respect their act. Obviously, I’m saddened by the thought that these storms are hurting people. I’ve heard so many pass-the-blame, vengeful-God theories in the last week — i.e., abortion, gay rights, global warming, etc. — that I’m honestly starting to think the only reason God lets tragedies happen is so people will stop acting like dicks towards each other (though once we start shooting choppers, all bets are off). But the reason I find myself “rooting” for these storms, so to speak, is because their victims aren’t victims until the aftermath. Before that, they’re just nameless, faceless lemmings. It’s the storms — not the humans — who we humanize with names like Andrew, Camille, and Katrina. It’s the storms whose stories we follow as they aim to achieve something — even if that something is nothing but senseless destruction. On the roads, we call it rubbernecking when people slow down to look at accidents and disasters. It’s a morbid curiosity. I hate to admit it, but, like many Americans, I often give in to the rubbernecking mentality. Sometimes it’s because witnessing chaos helps me analyze my own existence. Other times it’s because chaos helps me mythologize existence through hyperbole — a sure product of watching SportsCenter, which manufactures statistical categories out of seemingly everything. (Seriously, must every stinking human event be the “best [something] ever”?) When flames ripped through a Rhode Island nightclub during a Great White concert in 2003, I found myself semi-consciously hoping the death count would hit 100 — for no other reason than the fact that 99 seemed “oh, so close.” On September 11th, the media threw out wicked numbers like “as many as 50,000 casualties.” That number dropped to 6,000 then 3,000 then settled in at “almost 3,000,” where it remains today. It’s a terrible thought, but those initial numbers sort of cheapened 9/11 for me. It was hard to sustain the same level of rage for “almost 3,000” victims that I felt for “as many as 50,000.” I never thought, “Gee, I’m glad 9/11 and that nightclub fire happened,” though. That’s the difference between those events and summerly hurricanes. Hurricanes, I actually get excited for. I look forward to their coverage every season; it’s only afterwards that I realize how thoroughly idiotic this is. I wonder how I would feel if, instead of 9/11, we called it Terrorist Attack Henry. Or instead of the Great White fire, we knew it as Nightclub Disaster Sue. I’ve never been a fan of saying the media “desensitizes” violence. But to some extent, it’s obviously true. I wouldn’t be having any of these thoughts if it weren’t for the way the media covers tragedies. I guess that’s just one of the side effects of following the news. It gets to a point where some disasters need to be covered as disasters; there are too many victims — too many stories — to cover them all individually. I cringe when I turn on the tube and see all those broken homes down on the Gulf Coast. All those people stranded on rooftops. All those towns wiped off the map. It’s sad. I’m not happy that any of this happened. It really “puts things in perspective,” as they say in the world of sports. And yet, there’s a voice in the back of my head somewhere — a mic in its hand — saying: “Brace for the worst now. Brace for the worst.” I can’t stop watching because, deep down, I’m waiting for something to happen. Which, deep down, means I want it to. And I won’t stop watching till something does happen, or until — like Natalee Holloway, the Columbia crash, and a billion other news stories before it — I’m confident nothing will. I’m not saying it’s right, but it is what it is — and I suspect I’m not alone here. Deep down, there’s a small part of all of us that wants New Orleans to be lost. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
How many people would pay for a product that didn't work and then pay more money for the same product again? Most would look for an alternative. I know that is what I did when I switched cell phone companies. I couldn't hear the person I was speaking to with my first company or conversely, they couldn't hear me. It really was like that commercial, only painfully not funny. The company assured me they were going to build a tower near my home to correct the problem but they wouldn't refund my money. Every month I would pay my bill but the problem never went away. Finally I switched services. Last I heard, the tower still hasn't been built and other people continue to experience that same problem. You have to know when to cut your losses. That is something better not learned by experience — although sometimes it can't be avoided. So why is it that the Chicago Public School system is going to receive additional money from the federal government and pass it on to the same teachers to tutor the same students who they're failing to educate in the first place? Does that make any sense? Even worse, Illinois continues to throw unreasonable paperwork obstacles in the way of private tutoring companies that could be offering Chicago families valuable, free tutoring options under NCLB. But the first being to change should be the way the subjects are being delivered. Which students are in need of these supplemental services? The University of Chicago's Consortium on Chicago School Research study found that in 2004, only 39 percent of African-American males and 51 percent of Latino males had graduated by age 19. These statistics seem to indicate some kind of systemic failure at work within the school system. Tutoring under these circumstances is akin to putting a band-aid on a massive hemorrhage. It would be more practical to address the actual practices in the classroom. In the case of Latinos, Lexington Institute education analyst Don Soifer suggests that in light of scientific evidence, "that younger children are able to learn second languages faster and more effectively than older children, Bilingual programs like Chicago’s that delay teaching English until children are older miss that valuable window of opportunity, holding back the very children they were created to help." Why not change the way English learners are being taught in Chicago public schools to emphasize early English acquisition? Wasn’t that the purpose of these programs in the first place? Stephanie Banchero reported in the Chicago Tribune that recent ACT scores indicate our graduates aren't prepared for college. "Only in English did a majority of the students meet ACT standards for college readiness." In Reading, 55% tested below standard; Math, 62% below standard; and Science, 75% below standard. In the face of such abysmal reading scores, Beth Norman, a teacher at a Montessori school in Illinois, had this to say, "Seems like if you fail to meet academic standards the fall back should be 'pick one of the mandated Reading First Grant' programs!! And then hire outside certified tutors until district teaching staff can be retrained in intensive, systematic, multi-sensorial reading interventions." In the 2005-2006 State of Our Nation’s Youth Report, 75% of the students surveyed suggested requiring Math and Science courses for all four years of high school. They also indicated that if their teachers would raise the bar and expect more of them, they would be willing to do the work. Fuzzy Science and Math are clearly missing the boat. Many Chicago Public Schools have failed to make AYP, some as many as six times. Granting these institutions a waiver from NCLB and allowing them to provide their own tutoring for their students sends the message that their product is acceptable. Customers have the option to replace inferior products. When it comes to education, poor teaching practices merit the same type of response. Why is the silence so deafening when it comes to insisting on a better product for our children? Bad reception? For more, see:
Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
By now you heard the announcements that Saddam Hussein has been captured. The celebrations have been reported, the pictures of joy sent around the world. Now that the war is really over, when will the troops start to come home? Before you hear and read all the detailed accounts of the capture, let’s focus on the stated purpose of the Iraqi invasion. Since a WMD cache still eludes finding, the proponents of the war must hang their hat on the finding and arresting of the evil tyrant. Mission accomplished, so what’s next? Any student of history knows all too well that the U.S. involvement into Iraq will not be temporary or that the boys won’t be coming home anytime soon. The real test of motives for any belligerent is how they manage a victory. It is necessary to remind that the intrusion into Iraq was a pre-empted incursion. This strategy is certainly a fundamental departure from any previous policy to commit to a major campaign. Therefore, the defenders of that course, are left with the unenviable task of justifying the results of that action. As time passes, you will be left empty with this temporary enthusiasm. In the end, this war will never be seen as a liberation of the Iraqi people, but will be viewed as an assault on the American society. Principles of engagement have significance. Deployments deplete moral resolve when made discretionary. The question that will haunt the War Party is whether this war was necessary? When General Ricardo Sanchez laughs at the question when will the boys be leaving, his answer is typical: when the mission is over. This is an opportunity to grow up as a nation. Rational citizens are left with the stark reality that foreign policy is designed as a mobile plan to implement hidden goals with each incremental intimidation against regimes that oppose the New World Order. The talking heads are already praising the triumph as a message to any other country that is ruled by a dictator, not approved by the Washington DC autocrats. That’s the undeniable lesson of this encounter into the affairs of the international disunity that only globalism can cure. This precedent will establish that superior power can be used to poke a stick in the eye of any country that opposes the interventionist legions of armed occupation. The special forces will get the permanent assignment of destabilizing regimes for the purpose of establishing the desired order. Nice work if you can get it, but for whom, does this formula benefit? Watch the travels of James Baker III for your answer. As Greg Palast so aptly addresses the big picture: “We are talking about something called "sovereign debt." And unless George Bush has finally 'fessed up and named himself Pasha of Iraq, he is not their sovereign. Mr. Bush has no authority to seize control of that nation's assets nor its debts . . . Over the years, Jim Baker has taken responsibility for putting bread on the Bush family table. As Senior Counsel to Carlyle, the arms-dealing investment group, Baker arranged for the firm to hire both President Bush 41 after he was booted from the White House and President Bush 43 while his daddy was still in office.” The responsibility for nation building is another excuse used to control a conquered country. The Iraqi Governing Council just a replacement for Mohammed Reza Pahlavi - shah of Iran - what do you think? Take the long perspective when putting the jigsaw puzzle together. The game never changes, it’s only the pieces that are painted with different images. Has this war made America any safer? In the end, that’s the only question that really matters. Domestically this battle has been a debacle for liberty. You are hearing the media rejoicing and using the term freedom, over and over. Somehow it escapes how the antecedent of ‘so called’ Iraqi liberation, has produced freedom back home. Saddam a dictator, sure. But why should replacing him with a cabal of globalists, using the cover of a coalition name be any different? The love feast is already gone nauseous. Just wait when Bin Laden is hooked by the Bush clan (just before the coming election), Baker will be working overtime. Forcing democracy upon a culture that has no tradition or desire to fashion one is the decisive mistake of the living history you are watching. If the real goal was Iraqi freedom, let the factions break up the country into tribal territories. Don’t hold your breath, that’s a solution that doesn’t serve the selective control of the oil flow. Don’t be too surprised when you hear that those phantom weapons are stored in Syria and Iran. Saddam will talk and what is needed will be said. Bring the troops home, when they are already there, just means more work yet to do . . . If you doubt this assessment, check back in ten years and see who is right. The empire will build their Trajan’s Column. Conquered barbarians will be allowed to enter the gate of the new Rome. And the garrisons will still be manned. What will Howard Dean do now . . .
|
||||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 11:22 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||
