Although a third of Louisiana's National Guardsmen are in Iraq or preparing to go to Iraq, officials say that the National Guard can handle any disaster that might occur.

As I write this, the eye of hurricane Katrina is inexorably moving towards New Orleans with a force that will probably destroy the city. That which the wind does not destroy, the flood waters will. Most of the population has evacuated, but as many as 100,000 persons are trapped in the city with no means of transportation to get out and with very few options for shelter. People are crowding into the Superdome, which should afford some safety as long as the roof does not blow off.

New Orleans, being largely below sea-level, depends upon large pumps to keep the water at bay. It is a virtual certainty that the pumps will fail this evening because of either flooding or power failure. The city and its remaining inhabitants wait unprotected in the night, hoping to survive until the storm passes over. Many of them will not survive. Most of the dead will be the poor who did not have automobiles or who stayed to work. They are trapped.

The heart of this nation goes out to those unfortunate persons. We hope for a miracle--that the hurricane veers away from New Orleans, that its fury abates before making landfall, that the damage and loss of life will not be a great as predicted, or that the floodwaters do not carry away too much. It will indeed take a miracle.

God watch over you. You have done what you could and now it's in His hands. As for our part, let us resolve to prepare our nation for future disasters so that when and where another one strikes, hundreds of thousands of persons -- usually the least fortunate of our citizens -- are not left to the mercy of the elements.

Another home run by Frank Rich on our posture in Iraq. Rich's columns must be the NY Times's subtle way of eating crow for printing all the lies and distortions written by Judith Miller. I suppose they feel they have to defend her on the basis of freedom of the press, but it's a stretch. What is at stake is not freedom of the press, but Judith Miller's ass. If she testifies before Fitzgerald's grand jury, she will likely have to take the Fifth Amendment, which would end her reportorial career and humiliate the Times, a humiliation they richly deserve. A person with Miller's talents and proclivities, however, should be able without difficulty to get a job in Karl Rove's office.

Rich reserves his sharpest barbs for Democrats who supported the war but cannot now admit they were mistaken. Is there no one in Washington, D.C. that can say "I'm sorry; I was wrong" or "I trusted them and I was deceived"? Let me know if you can think of anyone. The next president, either Democrat or Republic, will be faced with a major mess to clean up and an angry population screaming at him (or her) to put things back the way they were in the good old days. It will be up to the new president to tell people that Humpy Dumpty isn't going to be put back together again; that gasoline will not become cheaper; that in order to retain a minimally decent life Americans will have to sacrifice many superfluous things that they presently don't regard as superfluous. I can't see any politician on the horizon with the stature and credibility to pull it off.

Is being honest a form of political suicide for a politician?

In these days, perhaps it is.

On the spur of the moment, the following scenario popped into mind. I would appreciate it if any naval types would correct my mistakes in nomenclature:

The officer on the Bridge: "Sir, iceberg straight ahead"

Captain: "Stay the course."

OoB: "But Captain, if we continue this course, we will run into the iceberg."

(Sound of liquid being poured over ice.)

Captian: "You are a girly officer. I'll show you what a real leader is capable of. Full speed ahead."

OoB: " Sir, estimated time to collision 0300 hours."

Captain: "Lieutenant, if you mention an iceberg again, I will relieve you of your post immediately."

OoB: "Aye, sir. For my training, sir, perhaps you could tell me why I am wrong when the radar shows that I am right."

Captain (softening): "Sure, lieutenant. Radar is only a theory. There are a number of Nobel laureates that dispute whether radar even works at all. Their side of this controversy is finally being listened to by the media and even the Navy chief of staff has been known to show skepticism that radar actually works. All we radar skeptics want is a fair hearing."

OoB: "Well, sir, I've never heard of this movement. Can you tell me where you first heard about it?"

Captain: "It came from one of my staff officers. He taught me long ago that the best way to be promoted is to tell my superiors what they wanted to hear. The best way to keep the troops happy is to tell them how well things are going. That is what I've always done. If things eventually went sour, and I'm not saying that they ever actually did, I would have already been promoted to a higher position, so my successor would catch all the blame. I also had some help from my family the few times that something bad happened on my watch before I had gotten out. Now that I'm in command of a ship, I see no reason to change a successful method."

OoB: "Sir, what happened when other people disagreed with you?"

Captain: "That is the key to it all. When another officer or petty officer disagreed with me or told me I was making a grave mistake, I gave them a bad efficiency report, and if they were not under my supervision my staff officer friend spread enough rumors to cast doubts on their judgment or even their honesty. That spiked their promotions and ultimately got them out of the Navy."

OoB: "But what about this radar skepticism? How did that come about?"

(Sound of more liquid being poured over ice.)

Captain: "I found that the officers who during peacetime lived in a reality-based world didn't get very far. The way you got ahead was to make your own reality. The radar was often an obstacle to my plans. When I found out that there were important people that doubted whether it worked at all, I realized that throwing doubt on radar would be a great aid in creating my own reality. And in the reality I created, I would naturally be promoted ahead of my reality-based peers in the officer corps. It gave me a great advantage."

OoB: "A brilliant stroke, sir.

(Time passes. )

OoB: Uh, I think I had better warn you..."

Captain: "Not a word, Lieutenant; Stay the course and you will see that the reality we are creating will become the new reality. Lieutenant? Lieutenant? Lieutenant!!"

(At this point the recording, found amazingly preserved in the wreckage of the U.S.S. Toadstool under about 70 fathoms of Arctic water, ends abruptly.)

For the rare geek that might land here, an amusing post on anti-terrorism:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/ThinGuy?entry=the_war_on_terror_as
For non-*n*x types, here's a translation in English:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/ThinGuy/Weblog/p_bourne_shell_for_dummies?catname=

On the August 22, 2005 broadcast of the 700 Club, Pat Robertson, who calls himself a man of God, advocated assassinating Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias by the C.I.A. His exact words, as related by Media Matters:

ROBERTSON: There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

Robertson is a liar and a scoundrel talking about the "doctrine of assassination" as though it was just another theological proposition, up there along with the virgin birth and the Trinity. Has the man no decency? Does he have any respect at all for the truth? Apparently not.

Chavez is the legally elected president of Venezuela. He won a recall vote last year by a landslide in an election that foreign observers pronounced honest and fair. Chavez has won elections by a wide margin since 1998, even though he has been opposed by the commercial media the entire time.

The coup of which Robertson speaks was a typical South American plutocratic coup, whose purpose was to restore the old economic regime in which the few were fabulously wealthy and the rest of the nation was dirt poor. They were resentful because Chavez cracked down on PDVSA, the Venezuelan national oil corporation and forced it to pay its profits to the government instead of concealing it overseas.

But what really set off the upper crust was Chavez's decision to direct a large portion of the nation's fabulous oil wealth to the welfare of the entire nation rather than the tiny minority that previously had monopolized the benefits. He was building schools and hospitals, the latter staffed with Cuban physicians payed for by Venezuelan oil. For the first time, the average Venezuelan had hope that he or she might rise out of poverty and lead a decent life.

That could not be allowed to continue. Who knows what might happen if the regimes in South and Central America actually looked out after their own people's welfare? There wouldn't be enough Contras to go around. The sweatshops might have to start paying living wages. If thing really got bad, the drug trade might dry up, a disaster for law enforcement and the prison industry. The spectre of the job market being flooded by unemployed former narcs, paramilitaries, drug lords, SWAT teams and prison guards must have kept our nation's leaders up at night in a cold sweat.

As soon as Carmona, the new "president" assumed office, he abolished Parliament and the Supreme Court. He didn't just suspend the constitution; he abolished it, as well. The Bush administration applauded the return of democracy and quickly recognized the new government. It was a bit premature, however. Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets and for once, the military refused to cooperate with the coup and so Chavez was restored to his elected office in a couple of days. The coup was very likely backed by the CIA.

Robertson advocates conquest and murder for oil and U.S. hegemony over South America. He is angry that a popular, nationalist, dark-skinned politician is actually managing to improve the lives of all Venezuelans, rather than channeling all that wealth to the elite that, along with the giant U.S. corporations, previously appropriated it all for themselves. If you don't believe that's what he says, listen to Robertson say it.

After such viciousness, can anyone believe his claim to be a man of God? A follower of Christ? The answer is obvious.

For an alternative view of Venezuela, read The Narcosphere, VHeadline.com, and The Narco News Bulletin. They are not the final word on Venezuela or South America, of course, but much of their reporting comes from reporters on the spot and they bring a fresh breath of air into what has up to now been a desert of corporate propaganda.

I am rapidly tiring of the phrase "be afraid," used frequently throughout the liberal blogosphere. Fear is the worst possible response to any threat other than immediate physical danger.

Although the love of money is productive of much evil, fear, not money, is the root of it all. A person overcome by fear will commit the vilest acts of treachery without the slightest remorse. Tyrants rule by fear and in turn are ruled by fear, which turns them into monsters that ultimately destroy themselves.

Science has only recently begun to discover the deleterious effect of fear and anxiety upon the human body and psyche. The hormones our bodies produce in response to danger, if produced continuously, cause all manner of damage to the body and the brain.

One of the principal objects of all the world's great religions and paths is the conquest of fear. Jesus was continually exhorting his disciples to "be not afraid." (Matt. 8:26; 17:7; 28:10; Mark 6:50; Luke 12:7; John 14:27); Jehovah and his messengers frequently admonished people not to be afraid of anything on the Earth and to only fear Him. (Gen. 26:24; Josh. 10:25; 2 Kings 1:15; Ps. 27:1). Sri Krishna told Arjuna "Do not be troubled; do not fear my terrible form." (Bhagavad Gita, 11:49). The Buddha: "From pleasure comes grief, from pleasure comes fear; he who is free from pleasure neither sorrows nor fears." (Dhammapada, XVI:212) Chögyam Trungpa: " The key to warriorship and the first principle of Shambhala is not being afraid of who you are. Ultimately, that is the definition of bravery: not being afraid of yourself." Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior, p.28 (Boston, 1984)

Jack Kornfield wrote that after all is said "there is only love and fear," the two mighty opposites, the two worldviews that through their interplay create history.

It seems to me that the chief psychological manifestation of fear is what psychologists call projection: attributing to others unacceptable aspects of one's self. We fear the darkness within and therefore project it onto other persons, nations, religions or gods. The less familiar the "other," the more effective the projection. All of the problems of the world, nation, person, etc. are said to be caused by liberals, communists, fascists, conservatives, vegetarians, catholics, protestants, blacks, whites, latinos, or some other person, group, tribe, family, or nation that is the object of our projection, and that object must be suppressed or destroyed to solve the problem. For 50 years we projected our dark side onto Communism. When the Soviet Union collapsed, thus depriving us of our projection, our rejoicing was short-lived, because our elites quickly initiated a frantic search for a new enemy, a new target for our projections. After demonizing Serbia and bombing it into ruin, it was not long before they settled upon Islam as the preferred enemy.

Islam, in many respects, makes a perfect target of projection. Few Americans know Arabic or Persian or have even visited the middle east. We know little of the religious or social customs of Muslims. Few Americans have muslim friends. There is an abysmal ignorance of middle eastern history, especially the last two hundred years. Our Christian and Jewish religions have fought with Islam at one time or another for over a thousand years. A lack of familiarity with the target of projection is almost a prerequisite. It is difficult to project attributes onto someone you know well.

For elites, there is much to be said for demonizing an enemy. The nation can be mobilized for war. Civil liberties can be curtailed in the name of national security. Profits that would be considered obscene in peacetime can be made by corporations with the right political connections without interference by the organs of state charged with controlling corruption. Fear impairs judgment, and a fearful population is more pliable and more likely to believe what they are told than a less fearful one. Therefore, there is a constant struggle between those who would instill fear in the people and those who would endeavor to dispel that fear.

To the point: The the right-wing movement that controls the levers of the United States government has gained that power and is attempting to retain and extend that power by fear. It has been extraordinarily successful because liberals and progressives have attempted to mobilize opposition against the right wing by telling people that they should fear what Bush and his administration is doing and trying to do. This is a losing fight. You cannot fight fear with fear any more than you can fight evil with evil or fire with fire. Fear only makes the right wing stronger because the basis of its power is fear and fear alone. Roosevelt was right: we have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Ultimately, the origin of all fear is the repressed fear of our own selves. The only remedy for that kind of fear is the willingness to see ourselves and our nation honestly for what we are--basically good but, like all humankind, deeply flawed and too often prone to foolishness and evil.

We are progressives and liberals; we are not afraid of Osama Ben Laden, or Saddam Hussein or communism or anything else that we are told to be afraid of. We will not kowtow to injustice, whether it is domestic or foreign. We are not willing to give up our freedom for security, because the deal is rigged and we end up with neither. We realize that the price of freedom and justice can be high, but that any other bargain is no bargain at all. That we might become victims of terrorism is no reason to be cowards, about whom it is rightly said die many times, whereas the brave die only once.

Our nation was founded on ideas of freedom, justice and democracy--not race, religion, history or soil. Abandon those ideals and there will be no nation to preserve. Many people gave their lives for those ideals and considered it a good trade. We feel the same way.

So don't tell me to be afraid. Concerned, yes. Angry, perhaps. But not afraid.

When a local Texan shows his disapproval of Ms Sheehan's demonstration on the doorsteps of the Bush estate by driving his pickup through the site and knocking down memorial crosses, it's a sign that her vigil is beginning to grab some real traction in the media, and therefore in the public consciousness. Only a real crazy could applaud such an act; those with the slightest vestige of decency are appalled and ashamed. Law enforcement officials, state and federal, haven't exactly shown themselves anxious to protect the lives and property of the demonstrators, either.

Now that one of Bush's neighbors has given the demonstrators the use of his private property so that they don't have to stand in ditches to which they have thusfar been relegated by the president's men and the local gendarmes, at least they will not be in danger of being driven back to Crawford, seven miles away. The neighbor, a veteran, opposes the Iraq war.

In light of the fact that he is the single most powerful person in the world, it is hard to imagine that Bush refuses to grant an audience to Ms. Sheehan. Maybe he has worn that smirk so long that it has become permanent and smirking at a bereaved mother would be politically damaging. Riding his bicycle, however, while she stands outside demanding a meeting does not present a very flattering picture of Bush the man. Every day she stands there in the August heat and Bush hides from her behind the chain-link fence reveals to the nation and the world a little more about the character of our chief executive.

The longer Ms. Sheehan stands before the imperial gates, Bush looks sorrier and sorrier. I predict that ultimately the sheriff and the Secret Service will concoct a pretext to drive her and her supporters away using far more force than necessary. The old ones of us who have lived in the Deep South have burned into our memories a similar event: the attack on the civil rights demonstrators in Selma, Alabama by Alabama state troupers as they attempted to cross the Pettus Bridge. That unprovoked attack and the murder of Mrs. Luizzo, along with the murder of Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney in Neshoba County, Mississippi, were the tipping points for the civil rights movement. It outraged the nation and led directly to the passages of the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act.

The stage is already set. A majority of the nation is disenchanted with the Iraq war, but not yet outraged, probably because the national media have been particularly disingenuous in their reporting and painting the situation as far better than the disaster it has become. If Ms. Sheehan is mistreated (and many already believe that she has been mistreated by being forced to stand in a ditch) that disenchantment could quickly turn to anger

Billmon has a particularly good analysis of the Democrats' chances over the next 15-16 months.

There seems to be little doubt that one or more officials high in the Bush administration knowingly and deliberately leaked that fact that Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joe Wilson, was an undercover agent for the CIA. That this leak followed by a few days the publication of Wilson's letter to the New York Times disputing the administration line on Saddam and Niger leaves little doubt that the leak was intended as retaliation against Wilson for exposing the president as a bald-faced liar.

Since that time, there has been a virtual blizzard of reports and allegations that Plame was responsible for sending Wilson to Niger and therefore (inexplicably to this writer) no one in the administration violated 50 U.S.C. §451. Ergo Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is on a vindicative witch hunt.

Can someone explain to me how Plame's sending Wilson to Niger, or suggesting his name, or influencing in any way the CIA's decision to send him to Niger, exonerates the leaker? Until a reasonable explanation emerges, I think it is fair and reasonable to assume that the rightwing noise machine is throwing up the Chewbacca defense.

Kurtztown, Pennsylvania high school students who hacked into their school's administrative computer network using school-issued laptops have been charged with felonies, according to an AP article. The students were able to do this because of the rank incompetence of the administration in securing its network, including using the same administrative password for all the student laptops and taping the password to the back of one or more of the computers.

It appears to this writer that our society--perhaps unconsciously--has decided that the criminal justice system is the solution to any behavior we don't like, even when children or teenagers are involved and no one is hurt. When the police seize a 12-year old girl for eating french fries in a Washington, D.C. subway station, handcuff her, and book her for a misdemeanor, it is a sign that our society has crossed a line that will be difficult, if not impossible, to retreat across. It doesn't matter that the action of the police passed constitutional muster; the mere fact that the police employed force on a 12-years old girl for what was admittedly a trivial infraction is a strong demonstration that we have lost our faith in persons being reasonable. We also seem to have taken up the doctrine of original sin with a vengence.

It reminds me of the Queen of Hearts, whose solution to all transgressions was "Off with their heads." When I was a child and saw Alice in Wonderland, I thought the queen's behavior was bizarre and atypical. Now it's beginning to seem commonplace.

Scooter Libby and Judy Miller met on July 8, 2003, two days after Joe Wilson published his column. And Patrick Fitzgerald is very interested.

When I carefully consider the curious habits of dogs
I am compelled to conclude
That man is the superior animal.

When I consider the curious habits of man
I confess, my friend, I am puzzled.

                           --Ezra Pound, Poems 1914

When I consider the irrefutable fact that the world is burning five barrels of oil for every barrel that is discovered and that we cannot, as a matter of simple arithmetic, continue to burn through non-renewable energy at this rate indefinitely, or even for very long;

And when I drive through the countryside outside the urban area of Jackson and see streets being paved, utilities being extended and large houses being built on large lots;

And when I further consider the fact that these expensive houses on large lots that consume water, electricity and natural gas on a grand scale are purchased by well-to-do professionals—educated persons in positions of responsibility requiring mature and informed judgment;

And when I further consider that the educated dwellers in these houses seem to be unable to connect the incredible waste that results from their lifestyle—the suburban low-density sprawl that consumes open farmland and makes such a demand upon infrastructure, the energy and resources required to heat and cool large homes, water to fill swimming pools, water lawns, make hot water and wash dishes and clothes—with the rapid depletion of the very resources upon which they depend,

I am amazed that some enterprising architect or builder has not already designed and built a community in which almost everyone can get to work and obtain the necessities of life by walking; where high-density residential areas are pleasant and conducive to neighborliness and voluntary participation in one's community; where homes are energy-efficient and as much as possible make use of renewable energy for heating and cooling; where autos are driven only for pleasure and not out of necessity; where children can walk almost everywhere safely and not be simply tolerated but loved, nurtured and guided by the entire community; and most of all, where everyone, young and old, can make a contribution.

Anyone who can come even close to profitably creating such a community would be doing the world a huge favor and making himself/herself wealthy as well.

Success in such an endeavor would require skills far beyond architectural, engineering, building and landscaping; social entrepreneurship and vision would be essential. The idea is not to create a utopia but a satisfying place to live, work and love. It is almost certain that we will be forced to do more with less in the next few years as the cheap oil that sustains our modern suburban civilization becomes a thing of the past.

Surely we can plan for such an eventuality, rather than motoring blindly into what could be a calamitous economic and societal breakdown.

Ideas?