Oh, this is just..... GROSS. Age of Hooper has images from the very inappropriately named 'Breasts not Bombs' anti-war protest. (It should have been called 'Kneecaps Not Bombs'.)
Will seeing those things will stop war? I highly doubt it. They will stop any thoughts you're currently having about sex, though.
NOTE: Do not open the above link at work. Or right after eating a meal.
Hattip: LGF.
30 September 2007
Governor's Race Daily Fun Facts.
I'm posting daily "fun facts" about the current Governor's race over at Louisiana Conservative Dot Com. Stop over for a read, and look at some of the other stuff, too.
(Yes, yes, I know; not exactly original. But imitation IS the sincereist form of flattery......).
(Yes, yes, I know; not exactly original. But imitation IS the sincereist form of flattery......).
28 September 2007
Spellcheck: Oracle of Truth?
Another something off-track for a Friday evening. Try this:
1. Open Microsoft Word.
2. Type the following letters: lsu
3. Hit 'return', and wait for it to underline "lsu" as a mis-spelled word.
4. Go to 'Tools / Spelling and Grammar" and start spellcheck.
5. For "lsu", the first two suggestions are "lust" and "lush".
Which pretty much describes my first semester in Baton Rouge. Hell, that pretty much describes anybody's first semester in Baton Rouge.
Word also suggested “lose”, "slug" and "slum", too. It's like it knows the place!
For "usc", Word suggested "suck", "musk", and "tusk". Trojans? Say no more.
For "ut", "put" and "out" were among the suggestions. Oh, my. Using the thesaurus function for "ut", Word suggested "hillbillies who actually think orange is fashionable". No, no, no. Not really. That was just a shameless ploy to get Glenn Reynolds to give me a link. Shameless.
1. Open Microsoft Word.
2. Type the following letters: lsu
3. Hit 'return', and wait for it to underline "lsu" as a mis-spelled word.
4. Go to 'Tools / Spelling and Grammar" and start spellcheck.
5. For "lsu", the first two suggestions are "lust" and "lush".
Which pretty much describes my first semester in Baton Rouge. Hell, that pretty much describes anybody's first semester in Baton Rouge.
Word also suggested “lose”, "slug" and "slum", too. It's like it knows the place!
For "usc", Word suggested "suck", "musk", and "tusk". Trojans? Say no more.
For "ut", "put" and "out" were among the suggestions. Oh, my. Using the thesaurus function for "ut", Word suggested "hillbillies who actually think orange is fashionable". No, no, no. Not really. That was just a shameless ploy to get Glenn Reynolds to give me a link. Shameless.
Trying To Keep Awake.....
I'm in an all-day seminar right now to knock out some of my continuing-ed hours, so no posts till the evening. Sitting through this is equivilent to chewing off your own leg.
Check back later. If I survive.
Check back later. If I survive.
27 September 2007
You Brutes! You Brutes! You Brutes!
While I am far from satisfied with the results of The Episcopal Church's House of Bishops meeting (scroll down to post below), the uber-lefties, ex-hippies, and single-issue Episcopalians, are far from satisfied, either. So maybe it wasn't such a bad meeting after all. Reading posts on the House of Bishops / Deputies Listserve, it is clear that the flower children are fuming. Posters are claiming that the Bishops sacrificed "justice" for "unity" (that is, keeping The Episcopal Church (tm) in the Communion by saying they will not ordain non-celibate gay and lesbians to the episcopate, and would not bless same-sex marriages), and that they made gays and lesbians "second-class citizens" in the Church because of it.
What a load of press release.
First of all, would you please calm down and smell the patchouli? Remember, your side runs the place. At least in the US, anyway. Traditionalists like me (also known on the Listserve as "bullydox", "thieves", "bigots", "zealots" "homophobes" and other terms of progressive Christian compassion), had little say.
And stop using the crucifixion imagery over and over to describe what you see as this martyred condition of gays and lesbians in the Church - it is insulting as heck to those of us who still believe Christ's crucifixion actually happened. No one is nailing you to a cross. No one WANTS to nail you to a cross. No one wants to throw you out of the Church. I sure don't, and I am firmly in the orthodox camp on things Spiritual. You are, like me, a child of God. And like me, a sinner. So listen to me closely:
Sexual orientation is NOT THE ISSUE HERE.
I don't disagree with Louie Crew because he is gay. I disagree with Louie Crew because I think his theology is wrong. Gays and lesbians are NOT barred from higher office in the Church. NOTHING in Lambeth 1.10 or B033 forbids it. A gay or lesbian who wants to be a priest or bishop can be if they feel called - just adhere to the teachings of the Church that everybody else has to follow. And the Church teaches that sex outside of marriage is adultery. A sin. If it is a sin for a non-married heterosexual man or woman, and should bar them from the episcopate, why should a gay man or woman be different?
When my wife and I returned to the Church, it was through the efforts of a wonderful priest who helped us discern our path back. He was (and is still) a cherished friend. He is also gay. But he puts his love of God and the Church before himself, and he remains celibate. He would make a superb Bishop.
Second, before you castigate the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Presiding Bishop, or the House of Bishops, for their stance holding off on non-celibate gay Bishops and gay marriage, ask yourself this question: "What did Abraham Lincoln do?" Lincoln came to power strongly for emancipation. But once in office, he realized his priorities had changed - he was now the President of ALL the Union, and the Union needed to be preserved if emancipation was ever to take place. He once said "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." See it from their side, and from their perspective. Realize we all have to make sacrifices for the greater good of all in the Church. Me. You. Even Bishops. (Wait a minute. Did I just defend the Presiding Bishop?? I guess I did. Well whadda you know...)
Third, quit using the language of the persecuted, marginalized outsider when referring to gay and lesbians. This is not the 1950's or even the 1970's. Yes, you can still find examples of true persecution, but gays and lesbians are accepted today in ways that would have been unthinkable even 30 years ago. 'Queer Eye' was not pulled from the airwaves - it was a smash success. Gays and lesbians are not run out of town, living in dark corners begging for food. They are productive members of society, and productive members of our Church. I do not think you would find any on the orthodox side who would refuse the Sacraments to a gay or lesbian who comes to the rail just because they are gay or lesbian.
We should not (I think) have any disagreement about what constitutes sin. Adultery is a sin. And a member of the clergy, especially a Bishop, should be an example of a Godly life. If +V. Gene Robinson had been celibate, this whole thing might have been avoided. But he isn't - he put his own desires before those of the Church. That not a "prophetic vision" - that is bad policy, and very bad theology. What kind of example does that set? If we can ignore Scripture we don't like, or Church teachings we don't like, can we ignore Church Canons and Constitutions we don't like, too? If not, why not?
Remember that there are those in our Church, like me, that feel spiritually injured by what has happened since 2003, and feel marginalized by The Episcopal Church's (tm) "prophetic vision". Where do we fit in? What kind words do you have for us?
Or, do you care?
What a load of press release.
First of all, would you please calm down and smell the patchouli? Remember, your side runs the place. At least in the US, anyway. Traditionalists like me (also known on the Listserve as "bullydox", "thieves", "bigots", "zealots" "homophobes" and other terms of progressive Christian compassion), had little say.
And stop using the crucifixion imagery over and over to describe what you see as this martyred condition of gays and lesbians in the Church - it is insulting as heck to those of us who still believe Christ's crucifixion actually happened. No one is nailing you to a cross. No one WANTS to nail you to a cross. No one wants to throw you out of the Church. I sure don't, and I am firmly in the orthodox camp on things Spiritual. You are, like me, a child of God. And like me, a sinner. So listen to me closely:
Sexual orientation is NOT THE ISSUE HERE.
I don't disagree with Louie Crew because he is gay. I disagree with Louie Crew because I think his theology is wrong. Gays and lesbians are NOT barred from higher office in the Church. NOTHING in Lambeth 1.10 or B033 forbids it. A gay or lesbian who wants to be a priest or bishop can be if they feel called - just adhere to the teachings of the Church that everybody else has to follow. And the Church teaches that sex outside of marriage is adultery. A sin. If it is a sin for a non-married heterosexual man or woman, and should bar them from the episcopate, why should a gay man or woman be different?
When my wife and I returned to the Church, it was through the efforts of a wonderful priest who helped us discern our path back. He was (and is still) a cherished friend. He is also gay. But he puts his love of God and the Church before himself, and he remains celibate. He would make a superb Bishop.
Second, before you castigate the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Presiding Bishop, or the House of Bishops, for their stance holding off on non-celibate gay Bishops and gay marriage, ask yourself this question: "What did Abraham Lincoln do?" Lincoln came to power strongly for emancipation. But once in office, he realized his priorities had changed - he was now the President of ALL the Union, and the Union needed to be preserved if emancipation was ever to take place. He once said "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." See it from their side, and from their perspective. Realize we all have to make sacrifices for the greater good of all in the Church. Me. You. Even Bishops. (Wait a minute. Did I just defend the Presiding Bishop?? I guess I did. Well whadda you know...)
Third, quit using the language of the persecuted, marginalized outsider when referring to gay and lesbians. This is not the 1950's or even the 1970's. Yes, you can still find examples of true persecution, but gays and lesbians are accepted today in ways that would have been unthinkable even 30 years ago. 'Queer Eye' was not pulled from the airwaves - it was a smash success. Gays and lesbians are not run out of town, living in dark corners begging for food. They are productive members of society, and productive members of our Church. I do not think you would find any on the orthodox side who would refuse the Sacraments to a gay or lesbian who comes to the rail just because they are gay or lesbian.
We should not (I think) have any disagreement about what constitutes sin. Adultery is a sin. And a member of the clergy, especially a Bishop, should be an example of a Godly life. If +V. Gene Robinson had been celibate, this whole thing might have been avoided. But he isn't - he put his own desires before those of the Church. That not a "prophetic vision" - that is bad policy, and very bad theology. What kind of example does that set? If we can ignore Scripture we don't like, or Church teachings we don't like, can we ignore Church Canons and Constitutions we don't like, too? If not, why not?
Remember that there are those in our Church, like me, that feel spiritually injured by what has happened since 2003, and feel marginalized by The Episcopal Church's (tm) "prophetic vision". Where do we fit in? What kind words do you have for us?
Or, do you care?
26 September 2007
The Ambiguity is Dead! Long Live The Ambiguity!
The House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church ™ has finished meeting in New Orleans. They stared the Current Unpleasantness in the face, and boldly said pretty much what they've said before. Here is my synopsis of their response, without all the fluff and rhetoric of the original:
Dear Anglican Communion:
We’re really sorry the rest of you can’t see what a great gift we’ve given the Communion with our “prophetic vision”.
But it if makes you ignorant slugs out there happy, we promise not to give a pointy hat to another non-celibate gay person – for now (so pay no attention to the candidate up for Bishop of Chicago with her live-in partner.).
And we won’t “publicly” authorize gay marriages for a few more years. But what happens in “private”, well…. Wink. Wink. (This will hereafter be known as the “Bishop Bruno Rule”.)
We want to remain part of the Communion because, well, the Communion needs us and our "prophetic vision" so much. And we need the Communion to tell us how wonderful we are. Besides, you can't throw us out.
We’ll take care of those within our own Church who disagree with us in our own way, thank you very much. We have oursubpoenas, sorry, “episcopal visitors” all ready and waiting.
We don’t take orders, especially from uppity Africans - and we sure as hell don’t want them in our neighborhood. We demand all of the old rules we like be enforced.
We promise to give you a heads-up the next time we ignore all the old rules we don’t like and go our own way with this “prophetic vision” thing.
We want the Communion to keep listening to us and our “prophetic vision”; at least until everyone agrees with our point of view.
Did we tell you how much we hate Africans in our neighborhood?
That bishop’s party the Communion throws at Lambeth is meaningless, and has no power over us. But we damn well better be invited, and you damn well better invite Vicki, too.
In closing, we want you to know we really, really like gay people. And you ignorant slugs out there should, too.
Hugs,
THE BISHOPS
This meeting said little that hasn’t already been said before. At least they didn’t hide behind “polity” and Vatican-bashing like they did in March, and they did (finally) say that they will not consent to any more non-celibate gay bishops – until General Convention in 2009, anyway. Will this fly with the rest of the Anglican Communion? I doubt it. The growing provinces of the Anglican Communion, who are now the vast majority of the Communion, see the don’t-give-a-damn unilateralism of The Episcopal Church ™ as a liability in Mission, especially those in parts of the world where Anglicanism and Christianity are under assault by Radical Islam. The majority of the Communion may see the need to limit it’s liability by insulating themselves from The Episcopal Church ™ and other declining, like-minded provinces. It is going to be a tough call.
Will I, and my family, be Episcopalian in a year? Before this meeting I answered yes – I would stay and fight. My focus is on Christ and on trying to live my Faith as God revealed in Scripture - not how we adhere to the legalisms of earthly Canons and Constitutions. But now, I’m not so sure about it all. Our bishops seem to have gone from defenders of our Faith to defenders of our “Polity”. I’m not sure the focus of The Episcopal Church ™ is the same as mine anymore. If the focus of our Church is now our “polity”, where Scripture is meaningless and our Faith is whatever 51 percent of our General Convention wants it to be, what’s the bloody point?
UPDATE: StandFirm, Brad Drell and Kendall Harmon have much, much more.
Dear Anglican Communion:
We’re really sorry the rest of you can’t see what a great gift we’ve given the Communion with our “prophetic vision”.
But it if makes you ignorant slugs out there happy, we promise not to give a pointy hat to another non-celibate gay person – for now (so pay no attention to the candidate up for Bishop of Chicago with her live-in partner.).
And we won’t “publicly” authorize gay marriages for a few more years. But what happens in “private”, well…. Wink. Wink. (This will hereafter be known as the “Bishop Bruno Rule”.)
We want to remain part of the Communion because, well, the Communion needs us and our "prophetic vision" so much. And we need the Communion to tell us how wonderful we are. Besides, you can't throw us out.
We’ll take care of those within our own Church who disagree with us in our own way, thank you very much. We have our
We don’t take orders, especially from uppity Africans - and we sure as hell don’t want them in our neighborhood. We demand all of the old rules we like be enforced.
We promise to give you a heads-up the next time we ignore all the old rules we don’t like and go our own way with this “prophetic vision” thing.
We want the Communion to keep listening to us and our “prophetic vision”; at least until everyone agrees with our point of view.
Did we tell you how much we hate Africans in our neighborhood?
That bishop’s party the Communion throws at Lambeth is meaningless, and has no power over us. But we damn well better be invited, and you damn well better invite Vicki, too.
In closing, we want you to know we really, really like gay people. And you ignorant slugs out there should, too.
Hugs,
THE BISHOPS
This meeting said little that hasn’t already been said before. At least they didn’t hide behind “polity” and Vatican-bashing like they did in March, and they did (finally) say that they will not consent to any more non-celibate gay bishops – until General Convention in 2009, anyway. Will this fly with the rest of the Anglican Communion? I doubt it. The growing provinces of the Anglican Communion, who are now the vast majority of the Communion, see the don’t-give-a-damn unilateralism of The Episcopal Church ™ as a liability in Mission, especially those in parts of the world where Anglicanism and Christianity are under assault by Radical Islam. The majority of the Communion may see the need to limit it’s liability by insulating themselves from The Episcopal Church ™ and other declining, like-minded provinces. It is going to be a tough call.
Will I, and my family, be Episcopalian in a year? Before this meeting I answered yes – I would stay and fight. My focus is on Christ and on trying to live my Faith as God revealed in Scripture - not how we adhere to the legalisms of earthly Canons and Constitutions. But now, I’m not so sure about it all. Our bishops seem to have gone from defenders of our Faith to defenders of our “Polity”. I’m not sure the focus of The Episcopal Church ™ is the same as mine anymore. If the focus of our Church is now our “polity”, where Scripture is meaningless and our Faith is whatever 51 percent of our General Convention wants it to be, what’s the bloody point?
UPDATE: StandFirm, Brad Drell and Kendall Harmon have much, much more.
25 September 2007
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.
If you ever wondered what a blog would look like if it was written by the "French Taunter" from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, well wonder no more - go read Frank J at IMAO.
Check out his Fred Thompson Facts, and his John Edwards Fabulous Facts. Priceless.
Check out his Fred Thompson Facts, and his John Edwards Fabulous Facts. Priceless.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Go Away. Execute and Exterminate? We'll Listen.
The Naked Emperor brings up two excellent points in this post about the Iranian President speaking at Columbia University. First point, concerning Iran's support of terrorism and getting a nuke:
'Did [Columbia President] Bollinger think all that would change just because of a couple of questions from some sophomores?"
Indeed. Are these elite schools that arrogant, or that naive? Or, that stupid?? Second point, he sees a bit of hypocrisy:
"One stated reason was for "free speech". So you let a tyrant prattle on, who slaughters homosexuals, but won't let ROTC speak on campus because they follow the federally mandated "Don't ask, don't tell" policy?"
Let me get this straight (no pun intended...): If you are the leader of a government that executes homosexuals and calls them a "problem", you might be able to speak at Columbia. Even if your regime rounded up homosexuals and made them wear pink triangles before gassing them, you might be able to speak at Columbia. But, put your very life on the line to defend the US Constitution, and carry out the policies put in place by the President, Columbia doesn't want to hear from you. At all.
NOTE: If you want to accuse me hypocrisy for defending homosexuals here but opposing non-celibate homosexuals in positions of power in The Episcopal Church (tm), don't. My issue with the latter is not homosexuality; it is the issue of celibacy (or, lack thereof). As leaders, our priests, bishops and others are to be examples of a Godly life to their congregations. We demand a higher standard for them, that we look up to for guidance. It is the accepted teaching of the Anglican Communion that sexual expression outside of wedlock is adultery. A sin. So if you are called to be a priest or bishop, set an example. If not, what you do is between you and God, and is not a matter for the State. END OF NOTE
'Did [Columbia President] Bollinger think all that would change just because of a couple of questions from some sophomores?"
Indeed. Are these elite schools that arrogant, or that naive? Or, that stupid?? Second point, he sees a bit of hypocrisy:
"One stated reason was for "free speech". So you let a tyrant prattle on, who slaughters homosexuals, but won't let ROTC speak on campus because they follow the federally mandated "Don't ask, don't tell" policy?"
Let me get this straight (no pun intended...): If you are the leader of a government that executes homosexuals and calls them a "problem", you might be able to speak at Columbia. Even if your regime rounded up homosexuals and made them wear pink triangles before gassing them, you might be able to speak at Columbia. But, put your very life on the line to defend the US Constitution, and carry out the policies put in place by the President, Columbia doesn't want to hear from you. At all.
NOTE: If you want to accuse me hypocrisy for defending homosexuals here but opposing non-celibate homosexuals in positions of power in The Episcopal Church (tm), don't. My issue with the latter is not homosexuality; it is the issue of celibacy (or, lack thereof). As leaders, our priests, bishops and others are to be examples of a Godly life to their congregations. We demand a higher standard for them, that we look up to for guidance. It is the accepted teaching of the Anglican Communion that sexual expression outside of wedlock is adultery. A sin. So if you are called to be a priest or bishop, set an example. If not, what you do is between you and God, and is not a matter for the State. END OF NOTE
2 Plus 2 Equals......... We Need More Money.
It seems Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco's Road Home recovery program is even more broke than first thought, and - of course - she wants more money from the Feds to cover the difference. Remember, this was a 7.5 billion dollar program when it began, and there have been warning signs for months about a crisis. Now they're saying that need another 6.6 billion dollars to "fix" the problem. That's 14.1 billion dollars total. Is that enough? How really broke is Road Home?
Now I'm not a math wizz (I've got a degree from LSU, for goodness sake), but I do have a calculator and fingers.
According to Road Home's website, there are currently 184,678 applicants. OK. Now let's just say, for sake of argument, that they all get an "average" payout of, say, $80,000, a bit more than half the maximum amount. And let's add 10% onto to the top of that for ICFmismanagement of the program. So what is Road Home going to truly cost farmers in Iowa and moms in New Jersey? (blogger whips out his Windows calculator) 184,678 times $80,000 times 1.10. Which would equal.......
$14,774,240,000.00. That's 14.7 Billion Dollars.
(blogger rubs eyes) Um..... let's try that again.
184,678 times $80,000 times 1.10, equals..... Yep. $14,774,240,000.00.
Why is this a surprise now? Are you telling me no one had the foresight to run these kind of numbers at the beginning of this mess, to see what the "high end" might be? Does anybody in the Governor's Office Of Community Development, or at Blanco's highly-paid management experts, know basic multiplication??
All I can say folks is, January 1st won't come soon enough.
Now I'm not a math wizz (I've got a degree from LSU, for goodness sake), but I do have a calculator and fingers.
According to Road Home's website, there are currently 184,678 applicants. OK. Now let's just say, for sake of argument, that they all get an "average" payout of, say, $80,000, a bit more than half the maximum amount. And let's add 10% onto to the top of that for ICF
$14,774,240,000.00. That's 14.7 Billion Dollars.
(blogger rubs eyes) Um..... let's try that again.
184,678 times $80,000 times 1.10, equals..... Yep. $14,774,240,000.00.
Why is this a surprise now? Are you telling me no one had the foresight to run these kind of numbers at the beginning of this mess, to see what the "high end" might be? Does anybody in the Governor's Office Of Community Development, or at Blanco's highly-paid management experts, know basic multiplication??
All I can say folks is, January 1st won't come soon enough.
23 September 2007
Standing Firm, In Person.
With The Episcopal Church (tm) House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans right now, our church had Bishop Gary Lillibridge, from the Diocese of West Texas, as guest preacher this morning. He gave a very enjoyable homily, and it was quite an honor to serve the altar with the Bishop. But an equal honor was in meeting the incomparable Sarah Hey, one of the prinicpal writers of Stand Firm. Sarah worshipped with us this morning as she was scheduled to interview Fr. Ernie Saik about our church's efforts right after Katrina. Fr. Saik was not able to be there because of a medical emergency (please pray for him), but Sarah did interview one of the evacuees who stayed with us (he and his family are members of the church now). Look for her interview to be posted on Stand Firm soon. A very gracious lady, Sarah is.
For those who do not know, Stand Firm is one of the premier orthodox Episcopalian/Anglican websites on the 'Net, and is doing an excellent job covering the Bishops meeting in the Crescent City. Stand Firm is much hated and despised by the "progressive" wing of The Episcopal Church (tm), which is strange since they (the progressives) are always lecturing everyone else about not hating and despising.
If you still believe God is the one who defines His relationship with us, and that His Word means what it says, you should be reading Stand Firm. However, if you believe We are the ones who define our relationship with God, and that His Word means whatever 51 percent of General Convention says it means, go here. Or here.
Please pray for the House of Bishops as they continue to meet this week.
For those who do not know, Stand Firm is one of the premier orthodox Episcopalian/Anglican websites on the 'Net, and is doing an excellent job covering the Bishops meeting in the Crescent City. Stand Firm is much hated and despised by the "progressive" wing of The Episcopal Church (tm), which is strange since they (the progressives) are always lecturing everyone else about not hating and despising.
If you still believe God is the one who defines His relationship with us, and that His Word means what it says, you should be reading Stand Firm. However, if you believe We are the ones who define our relationship with God, and that His Word means whatever 51 percent of General Convention says it means, go here. Or here.
Please pray for the House of Bishops as they continue to meet this week.
22 September 2007
Jena Analysis.
The clothing-optional monarch takes a look at the whole affair in Jena, Louisiana, and thinks there is more Sharpton than fire here. He wonders if the truth may have one of the early victims. I wonder, too - others are still asking for facts, not background.
That usually happens when a story goes from being news to being a cause; from a set of facts facts to a set of emotions.
UPDATE: The Naked Emperor gets a link from Classical Values about the Emperor's look at the l'affair Jena. Pretty impressive. And I can say "I knew you when..."
That usually happens when a story goes from being news to being a cause; from a set of facts facts to a set of emotions.
UPDATE: The Naked Emperor gets a link from Classical Values about the Emperor's look at the l'affair Jena. Pretty impressive. And I can say "I knew you when..."
Going Somewhere?
The Picayune is confirming that Mayor C. Ray bought a house outside of Dallas last May.
There are lots of folks in the Crescent City who wouldn't mind it a bit if you left early, Ray. Most would even help you pack.
There are lots of folks in the Crescent City who wouldn't mind it a bit if you left early, Ray. Most would even help you pack.
21 September 2007
My $.02: Managing Is Not The Same As Resolving.
Well, well, well. Somebody finally cleaned behind the couches at the Mansion, and lookee what they found.
A billion dollars. Pretty hard to claim the State's broke now. Everyone is going to have a suggestion on how to spend it, so let me get on the bandwagon early:
Dedicate it to pay for the necessary improvements that FEMA won't pay for at the hundreds of public buildings and sites that are slated to be rebuilt, and still haven't (two years later....).
Apparently FEMA, in their infinite, um, "wisdom", will pay without limit to return a storm damaged public building that didn't work back to that very condition. But if you want to make it better when you rebuild, even very slightly, they'll only pay a portion of the assessed value, or not at all - even if the improved rebuilding costs less than the asessed value FEMA set to rebuild what was there before. Imagine if your insurance company, instead of writing you a check for the value of your storm damages and letting you best figure out how to spend it on rebuilding, would only pay you for building back exactly what was there before - and they had to approve even the smallest component that you put back. Had a rotten window frame before? Under FEMA's logic, you get a blank check to put back a rotten window frame, but they will not pay if you get a new frame. Or even to repair the rotten one. That's an "improvement" to FEMA, and they change the funding rules for the whole project if you put back more than that rotten window frame. Only a government could come up with logic like this.
And along with FEMA, there is an entire bureaucracy in the Governor's Office, complete with out-of-state consultants, which is also spending months (and money) wrangling about what constitutes "improved" or "not improved" under the FEMA regulations. As a result, many rebuilding projects sit - and those responsible for getting these places back up and running are tearing their hair out.
But with a billion Washingtons, or even half that much in "one-time" spending put to rebuilding, we could tell the FEMA folks to give us a check for what they will pay for, tell them and all these consultants to go away, and we will pay to "improve" things where necessary, thank you very much.
It makes no sense to put back what wasn't working before the storms.
My $0.02.
A billion dollars. Pretty hard to claim the State's broke now. Everyone is going to have a suggestion on how to spend it, so let me get on the bandwagon early:
Dedicate it to pay for the necessary improvements that FEMA won't pay for at the hundreds of public buildings and sites that are slated to be rebuilt, and still haven't (two years later....).
Apparently FEMA, in their infinite, um, "wisdom", will pay without limit to return a storm damaged public building that didn't work back to that very condition. But if you want to make it better when you rebuild, even very slightly, they'll only pay a portion of the assessed value, or not at all - even if the improved rebuilding costs less than the asessed value FEMA set to rebuild what was there before. Imagine if your insurance company, instead of writing you a check for the value of your storm damages and letting you best figure out how to spend it on rebuilding, would only pay you for building back exactly what was there before - and they had to approve even the smallest component that you put back. Had a rotten window frame before? Under FEMA's logic, you get a blank check to put back a rotten window frame, but they will not pay if you get a new frame. Or even to repair the rotten one. That's an "improvement" to FEMA, and they change the funding rules for the whole project if you put back more than that rotten window frame. Only a government could come up with logic like this.
And along with FEMA, there is an entire bureaucracy in the Governor's Office, complete with out-of-state consultants, which is also spending months (and money) wrangling about what constitutes "improved" or "not improved" under the FEMA regulations. As a result, many rebuilding projects sit - and those responsible for getting these places back up and running are tearing their hair out.
But with a billion Washingtons, or even half that much in "one-time" spending put to rebuilding, we could tell the FEMA folks to give us a check for what they will pay for, tell them and all these consultants to go away, and we will pay to "improve" things where necessary, thank you very much.
It makes no sense to put back what wasn't working before the storms.
My $0.02.
The Strategic Parking Lot Initiative.
Frank J uses the Iranian President's request to visit Ground Zero in New York to illustrate American foreign policy under President Thompson:
"In the Fred Thompson administration, there will be no need for the leaders of terrorist states to visit Ground Zero; Ground Zero will be wherever they live."
Sounds good to me.
Hattip: Instapundit.
"In the Fred Thompson administration, there will be no need for the leaders of terrorist states to visit Ground Zero; Ground Zero will be wherever they live."
Sounds good to me.
Hattip: Instapundit.
Muscle Only A Decal Deep.
A little something off-track for a Friday evening.
Like many people who lived through it, I've tried hard to mostly forget the 1970's. Watergate, pet rocks, disco, leisure suits, Farrah, my high school years. But today Glenn Reynolds dragged it all back with a post about this car. Thanks, Glenn. I'm sending you my therapy bill. At least he didn't mention another 70's beauty by the same manufacturer.
This is what we were reduced to in Jimmy Carter's America - a sedan with nice wheels and some "sport" decals. I don't know what's worse - that America would actually produce a car like that, or that there are currently enthusiasts for the car. Your call.
I dated a girl in high school who had a yellow 1973 Pontiac Firebird with one of those pre-energy crisis engines that could do 120mph and got 2 miles-per-gallon. I don't know which I missed most when we quit dating - her, or that car. Sounds like a darn Springsteen song, huh?
Like many people who lived through it, I've tried hard to mostly forget the 1970's. Watergate, pet rocks, disco, leisure suits, Farrah, my high school years. But today Glenn Reynolds dragged it all back with a post about this car. Thanks, Glenn. I'm sending you my therapy bill. At least he didn't mention another 70's beauty by the same manufacturer.
This is what we were reduced to in Jimmy Carter's America - a sedan with nice wheels and some "sport" decals. I don't know what's worse - that America would actually produce a car like that, or that there are currently enthusiasts for the car. Your call.
I dated a girl in high school who had a yellow 1973 Pontiac Firebird with one of those pre-energy crisis engines that could do 120mph and got 2 miles-per-gallon. I don't know which I missed most when we quit dating - her, or that car. Sounds like a darn Springsteen song, huh?
Gulf Storm Watch - 070921
Looks like we actually have a Gulf Storrm - Tropical Depression 10. Not a bad one, but it is coming right at us. And here are the obligatory "sapghetti models".
According to folks at the State, Louisiana is taking no chances and is getting their emergency operations spooled up. Not a bad precaution.
According to folks at the State, Louisiana is taking no chances and is getting their emergency operations spooled up. Not a bad precaution.
"I Am Indebted To You For Your Existence."
Image by RED STICK RANT
I attended the ecumenical service last night in New Orleans with the Archbishop of the Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams. His sermon, on the healing of New Orleans (and by extension, the Anglican Communion and each other), was quite moving, and I did think the service was a success. I was surprised, though, that there was not a bigger turnout. Two amusing things of note:
First, There has not been that much purple in a concert hall in Louisiana since Prince played in here the 1980's. Purple Reign, indeed.
And second, while ++Rowan and +Katherine may be powers in the Church, God bless 'em they have NO rhythm at all. None. There was a traditional New Orleans "Second-line" jazz number in the service, complete with folks "second-lining" in the aisles, and the two Bishops on stage tried their best to clap or tap their feet to the beat. I did appreciate the effort, though.
UPDATE: Here is the
19 September 2007
Gulf Storm Watch - 070919
Something of interest has appeared in the eastern Gulf:
"Spaghetti Models" of it's possible track:
Let's hope this does not develop into something worse. For New Orleans' sake, at the very least.
Source: Golden Triangle Weather Page, of course.
UPDATE: Maybe God wants these folks and their pointy hats to remember He is still out there. Many of them see Him as not really relevant anymore.
"Spaghetti Models" of it's possible track:
Let's hope this does not develop into something worse. For New Orleans' sake, at the very least.
Source: Golden Triangle Weather Page, of course.
UPDATE: Maybe God wants these folks and their pointy hats to remember He is still out there. Many of them see Him as not really relevant anymore.
Yeah, When We Get Our Embassy Back, Bucko.
The Iranian President has asked to visit Ground Zero when he is in New York at the UN next week.
The City, thankfully, said no. Personally, I say let the loony visit. Just make sure he is on the viewing platform with this guy.
Or, with a few of these folks, who he appears to have met before. It'd be a reunion!!
The City, thankfully, said no. Personally, I say let the loony visit. Just make sure he is on the viewing platform with this guy.
Or, with a few of these folks, who he appears to have met before. It'd be a reunion!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)