The Dish

“The self-congratulatory letter from the resident of Mississippi you printed might have been funny were it not such a shocking distortion of the genuinely sad and tragic facts on the ground in that state. Friends of relatives of mine – middle class white people – were trapped in a small town in southern Mississippi for days – just like the people of New Orleans – without fresh supplies of food, water, and gas. They waited and waited as trucks passed their town by, residents growing more desperate over the course of three or four or five days. They pleaded for help in every way they could, and were abandoned by their government, just like nearly everyone else affected by this storm. Barbour is no saint. Their stories will eventually be told, and some already have.”

Bull Moose makes the best case yet. I’m watching Hillary. If she votes no, then it seems to me that independents should be very leery of any attempt she makes to move to the center over the next couple of years. As for the gay groups (excepting LCR), I’ve given up on them taking a fair view of things like this. Roberts is as good as you’ll get under this president. But that doesn’t make for a good direct mail pitch, does it?

The leader of Germany’s Greens has new leverage.

The top ten questions for the FEMA Director Application.

“C’mon, do it; admit Mississippians are a breed apart from New Orleanians. Our people and government care, and we make do. We have learned to take care of our own, as outside help is usually unreliable and often ineffective in the context of our traditional social structures.
From your Sunday link, “The Competence Factor II,” I’m certain you read the Washington Post; but, evidently, any news that differs from your trope of governmental incompetence is unmentionable, such as the attached link. Governor Barbour demonstrated decisive leadership, he pre-positioned assets in Hattiesburg, including his wife and ninety State Troopers, who relayed disaster information back to the state capital of Jackson within hours of the storm surge’s retreat. As First Couple, they have been ubiquitous at the sites of the tragedy, not on radio chat shows or cable news talk fests, assessing and assisting.
The city of Ocean Springs, a beautiful Gulf pearl, with an artistic heritage not unlike your Provincetown, was heavily affected; but, though its plight was ignored by the national media, its people and leaders have pulled together to endure and triumph. I guess if your citizens are not complaining about federal aid to a celebrity reporter in a logo ball cap, pressed shirt, and creased “cargo” pants that has dropped in to exploit your personal tragedy, you don’t warrant attention.
Please draw this regional distinction and the need for differential disaster responses to the attention of your vast readership; or let it inform your thinking about the role of government in a federal system and the flexibility responsible agents need to make to deal effectively with regional differences, even among the states of a region.”

Harry Shearer – perhaps unintentionally – exculpates the Bush administration for ignoring the plight of poor black people in the response to Katrina. The federal response in Mississippi may be even worse – and it’s whites who are still waiting for basic aid. The point is not that this administration is somehow racist. It’s that its incompetence rains down on all of us alike.

BLOGS VERSUS AVIAN FLU: There’s now an avian flu wiki. Here’s a very useful link to various sources of breaking news and information. They could save your life: get your doctor to prescribe you some Tamiflu now. The British government has a helpful FAQ page as well. There are some signs that the U.S. government is slowly moving into action.

I’m as eager as the next guy to prevent pork-barrel spending, and I’d definitely support this effort. But the blogosphere campaign to battle pork in the face of Katrina, however admirable, still strikes me as too easy. The truth is: even if we got rid of all the pork, we’d still be in deep fiscal doo-doo. People like me who want to find the money to pay for Iraq and Katrina should be asked what we’d cut. Here’s my basic list: postpone or repeal or radically scale back the Medicare drug benefit so it only affects the truly needy; restore the estate tax in full; phase in the means-testing of social security; end agricultural subsidies; kill off all corporate tax relief and the mortgage deduction and move toward a flat tax. That’s a start. How many fiscal conservatives will bite these bullets?

It’s hard to know what’s going on in the detention camp in Cuba, but we do seem to have a hunger-strike on our hands. The question is: why? One potential answer might be found here:

Mr. Stafford Smith said the current strike began after some detainees reported witnessing the abuse of a prisoner, Hisham Sliti, when he returned to his cell after an interrogation session. He said that Mr. Deghayes told him that he had also seen a guard throw Mr. Sliti’s copy of the Koran onto a cell floor.

Once again, we have three options. This is more Qaeda-based propaganda. Koran-abuse is still going on. Or both.

“After the 1994 Los Angeles earthquake, Clinton asked for more than $3 billion to offset the new costs. The Democratic Congress gave it to him. After the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton asked for more than $1 billion in cuts. The newly Republican Congress insisted on more than $15 billion in offsets. (Let’s hear it for divided government!) Since taking office, Bush has yet to ask for a single offset to disaster-related spending.” – Ryan Sager (reg req), today. Yep, fiscally, Clinton-Gingrich was a conservative administration. Bush, in contrast, is a compulsive spendthrift.

One of the more irritating aspects of the post-Katrina debate has been the assertion by some liberals that the failure to provide emergency assistance for citizens hit by a natural diasaster is a function of conservatism. The notion is that conservatives hate government so much that they do not even think the government has an obligation to act in a natural disaster. In fact, the opposite is true. Real conservatives (I’m not referring to the crew now in the White House) favor energetic executive action where only it can do the job: police, war, disaster relief, a basic social welfare net. What we’re against is social engineering, redistributive taxation, over-regulation of private activity, etc. What conservatives want is a smaller yet stronger government. And getting smaller helps government focus on what it really should do, not on all the illusory goals that some liberals believe in, like, er, ending human inequality. Here’s Hayek, for example, cited on Jack Balkin’s blog, perhaps the philosophical lode-star for a certain kind of conservatism:

[T]here can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody…
Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance…the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong….
To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such “acts of God” as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.

What has happened under Bush is not a function of conservatism. It’s a function of abandoning conservatism.