What the National News Isn't Telling You About Hurricane Ike

We all saw the anchorpeople battling the 120 MPH winds in Galveston, but very little coverage was given during or after Hurricane Ike to Southeast Texas, the area that was the hardest hit by Ike's storm surge.  The City of Port Arthur and its suburbs were spared because of a 15-foot hurricane protection levee, built during the 1960's after Hurricane Carla.  The levee had never been tested prior to Ike (Hurricane Rita, which brought Category 3 winds to the area in 2005, had very little storm surge), and it proved barely adequate to stop the 14-foot wall of water.

However, while Port Arthur escaped major damage, areas outside the levee were completely devastated, particularly the town of Bridge City, Texas, in which 3000 homes are still unlivable.  Another 1000 homes are unlivable in the surrounding county, but to date, FEMA has delivered only a handful of trailers to those people despite thousands of requests.  Those who can't find shelter with their relatives are forced to live in tents, because all of the apartments and hotels in the area are completely full.

To make matters worse, Michael Chertoff has proven once again his ineptitude, lack of compassion, and complete lack of ability to organize anything larger than your average church bake sale.  Not only did he blow off a tour of the damage, but his agency was later quoted as saying that anyone who was still living in tents in Orange County was choosing to do so.

Have we learned nothing from Katrina?  Does it take CNN going down there and filming the devastation for any action to be taken at the federal level?  Everyone is making such a big deal about Joe the Plumber, but at least Joe the Plumber has a house.

Dear John Letter

Dear John,

Eight years ago, I was appalled when Karl Rove's underground network of whisper campaigners papered evangelical churches in the rural south with fliers proclaiming that your adopted African child was the product of an extramarital affair (possibly costing you the presidency.)  A year ago, I was pleasantly surprised to find out that, despite being a Republican, you had more of a common sense, centrist view on issues such as energy, abortion, and the environment.  I really believed you were different from Bush back then.  I really believed you were a maverick ...

... that is, until you chose Sarah Palin as your running mate.  Yeah, she seems like exactly the sort of person that one would enjoy having a beer with, but so did Dubbya, and we've seen where that's taken us.

You have heeded the mountains of evidence from both conservative and liberal scientists alike that the Earth's climate is changing due to human influence.  Your running mate, on the other hand, insists on living in denial.  She can't deny that the earth is getting warmer, because she can practically look out her back door and see the glaciers melting into the sea.  However, I guess that, being far removed from the pollution that is at the heart of climate change, the human influence part is easier for her to ignore.  You, on the other hand, have gone so far as to propose a carbon cap and trade system.  While many believe it doesn't go far enough, after eight years of inaction, I'll take whatever I can get.

Even the Bush administration, who is hardly known for being eco-friendly, has recognized the need to list polar bears as an endangered species.  Your running mate, on the other hand, wants to de-list them.  She also supports gunning down wolves from helicopters as a way to bolster the population of caribou and moose for hunters.

John, you believe that abortions should remain a legal option for victims of rape and incest.  Your running mate, on the other hand, believes that all abortions should be made illegal, which would force some victims of rape and incest to seek underground, back alley "doctors" to perform the procedure.  Your running mate proclaims that her own teenage daughter should be free to make her own choices, yet she seems to want to prevent everyone else's teenage daughters from having those same choices.  John, you support and recognize the need for stem cell research.  Your running mate, unfortunately, does not.

I was impressed when you proposed a $300 million prize for the invention of a significantly more efficient hybrid car battery, as well as $5000 tax credits for anyone who buys a car based on that technology.  I was impressed when you recognized that drilling in ANWR would have no significant effect on gas prices or foreign oil dependence and was thus not worth the sacrifice of that pristine ecosystem.  And yet, your running mate staunchly supports drilling in ANWR.  Come on ...  Even T. Boone Pickens (T. Boone Pickens!) is pimping alternative fuels, and like the man said, debating about whether or not to drill is missing the point.  Oil is over, man.

John, I don't believe you're as out of touch or Bush-like as the ads would have us believe.  I wish I could say the same for your running mate, however.  She seems about as Bush-like as they come ... which wouldn't concern me nearly as much if I didn't think you were likely to keel over in the next four years.

Obamacains and McClintons

A recent Gallup poll showed that, among current supporters of Hillary Clinton, 28% said they would vote for McCain if Clinton does not win the nomination.  A similar poll showed that, among current supporters of Obama, 19% said they would do likewise ... to which my first reaction was, "no ... really?  Seriously?"

Don't get me wrong-- McCain isn't such a bad guy.  Dare I say it?  I even respected the man, at least back in the days when he was capable of independent thought.  At the end of the day, though, McCain is a conservative ... and not the "compassionate" kind, either.  Thus, I'm having a difficult time imagining why someone would so strongly prefer one Democratic candidate over another and yet not care if the election gets handed to a Republican.  Obviously there was some quality that steered the Obamacains and McClintons toward their chosen candidate in the beginning.  Does the other Democratic candidate possess nothing of that quality?

The arguments we most often hear are that "Clinton has more experience" and "Obama is more inspiring."  Great, but Obama is not without experience.  After all, he was serving as a state senator several years before Clinton made her first political bid.  On the flip side, Clinton is not without the ability to inspire.  She can come across as emotionally detached at times, but she has also proven her ability to bring the house down, given the right topic.  The inability to sell ice to Eskimos on a daily basis should not disqualify anyone from public office, but, to paraphrase Mark Twain, what should disqualify someone from public office is wanting it too badly.  If a candidate has to resort to playing Lawyer Ball, one has to wonder whether they're really concerned about serving the people or serving themselves.  After all, those sorts of Rovian tactics went out with, well, Rove.

The American people are looking for hope right now.  They are looking for a president who can restore their faith in the system, and the one who emerges in November with the least amount of mud on his or her hands will likely be that president.  If none of the candidates manages to emerge unsoiled, then we will likely end up with another close, bitter race that is once again decided by the disenfranchised and the jaded.

If I were McCain, right now I'd be sitting in my hot tub watching CNN and grinning, because every time Clinton and Obama take a swing at each other, they're exposing a weakness that McCain can later exploit.  Clinton says that she wants to stay in until the last primaries have been held.  That is her right, but the question that both she and Obama need to ask themselves from this point forward is:  is it more important for my party to win the general election, or is it more important for me to win the nomination?

The Obamacains and McClintons should be asking themselves the same question.